Split by growing philosophical differences and what role markets should play in the state’s energy industry, California regulators earlier this month cranked out actions on a number of seemingly routine issues, but only after much debate and narrow votes.

Indicative of the acrimony and confusion, the California Public Utilities Commission members on a relatively small rate case issue involving Las Vegas, NV-based Southwest Gas Corp.’s operations in a few remote mountain and desert parts of the state (San Bernardino, Placer, El Dorado and Nevada Counties) voted three or four times on alternative orders, with one commissioner changing his vote in the middle of the process.

At stake was the issue of granting interim rate relief to the company — subject to later refund — because Southwest’s pending general rate case has been delayed. The CPUC granted the interim relief, but only with a start date in April.

On three renewable energy contracts by Southern California Edison Co. and on two issues involving clarifications in the handling of CPUC’s policy toward direct access customers who switch back to bundled utility service, the commission similarly split 3-2 in approving the contracts and actions.

On three separate state legislative proposals seeking a foundation to move forward with the energy industry in future post-energy crisis and electricity restructuring years, the CPUC commissioners were split between a majority of three wanting to work with the lawmakers to amend the proposed bills and a vocal minority that strongly felt the regulatory body should oppose two of the proposals (AB 428 and AB 816) that would establish a core/noncore split among customers in the electric industry and provide direct access for all noncore customers and/or lift the direct access suspension, respectively.

The third legislative proposal (SB 888) by Sen. Joe Dunn would eliminate any direct access and re-regulate the electric industry much more closely. The more moderate approach of “supporting if amended” the three proposals was adopted but only after long speeches by Commissioners Carl Wood and Loretta Lynch, who strongly opposed anything — such as direct access — connected with the state’s 1996 electricity restructuring law (AB 1890).

Besides favoring large customers by allowing direct access, the presence of customer choice “introduces a significant element of instability in the electricity supply in the state and creates problems going forward in necessary planning by the utilities,” Wood said.

CPUC President Michael Peevey and his two supporting colleagues emphasized that the CPUC was not “endorsing” the proposed laws as currently written, but merely “staying at the table” in the legislative debate by giving the conditioned support position on the proposals.

©Copyright 2003 Intelligence Press Inc. Allrights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republishedor redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without priorwritten consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.