• Oakley Power Plant Testimony

  • In March 2012, PG&E proposed to use ratepayer funds to build a new combined cycle natural gas-fired facility of 584 MW in Contra Costa County which would incur a total cost of approximately $1.15 billion. 

    DRA opposes PG&E’s request for ratepayers to fund the Oakley Power Plant because: 

    • PG&E does not demonstrate need for the Oakley project or that it is the appropriate method to fill any perceived need. 
    • The proposed project is not competitive and PG&E uses outdated Request for Offer (RFO) results. 
    • PG&E's cost recovery proposal is unreasonable given that its Operation & Maintenance estimates are not sufficiently substantiated and that the partial cost recovery settlement from the previous Oakley application is no longer in effect. 

    See Oakley Power Plant page.

  • DRA Testimony

    • Yuliya Shmidt TestimonyDRA Testimony on PG&E's 2012 Oakley request
    • Opening Brief_September 17 2012

      BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E) for Approval of Amended Purchase and Sale Agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Contra Costa Generating Station LLC and for Adoption of Cost Recovery and Ratemaking Mechanisms.

    • Oakley Testimony Blurb

       In March 2012, PG&E proposed to use ratepayer funds to build a new combined cycle natural gas fired facility of 584 MW in Contra Costa County which would incur a total cost of approximately $1.15 billion.  DRA opposes PG&E’s request

    • Oakley Main Page

      Background   PG&E filed the first Oakley application in 2009, which the CPUC denied in 2010 because PG&E had no need for new capacity in 2014, when Oakley was scheduled to start operations. PG&E instead requested the plant begin operations in

    • Attachments to Testimony

      Attachment A-C:  PG&E Data Response to DRA’s Request

      D: CAISO Testimony on Local Capacity Reliability

      E: PG&E Data Response to TURN’s Request

      F: Joint IOU Supporting Testimony

      G: PG&E Data Response to DRA’s Request

      H: PG&E Data Response to IEP’s Request

      I:  CPUC Scoping Memo and Ruling on SDG&E PPTA

      J:  CPUC Scoping Memo and Ruling on LTPP

      K:  CAISO Testimony on Once-through Cooling

      L:  PG&E Data Response to TURN’s Request

      M: PG&E Data Response to IEP’s Request

      O:  CPUC Presentation on LTPP Operating Flexibility Analysis

      P:  PG&E Data Response to IEP’s Request

      Q:  Control Engineering article on High-Efficiency Gas Turbines

      R-T:  PG&E Data Response to DRA’s Request

      U:  Sedway Consulting Market Valuation

      V:  PG&E Petition to modify 2010 CPUC decision

      W:  PG&E Data Response to DRA’s Request

      X:  PG&E Data Response to CEB’s Request

      Y:  PG&E Data Response to DRA’s Request