2. Procedural History
On December 21, 2007, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed Application (A.) 07-12-020 to make certain changes to its rate design. In that application, SCE requested authority to modify its current residential rate design to establish a Conservation Incentive Adjustment (CIA) and to modify an existing Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) rate, Schedule TOU-EV-1. The proposed CIA would restructure SCE's residential rates by flattening the generation component of residential rates and shifting the tier rate differentials to the delivery component.1 SCE's proposed modification to Schedule TOU-EV-1 would provide a greater price differential between on-peak and off-peak rates and is designed to encourage adoption of emerging LEV technologies.
Protests to A.07-12-020 were timely filed by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM) and
San Joaquin Valley Power Authority (SJVPA). The Utility Reform Network (TURN) also filed comments on the application.
On March 4, 2008, SCE filed A.08-03-002 to establish marginal costs, allocate revenues, and design rates for service provided to its customers in connection with its revenue requirements for service for 2009 - 2012. This cost allocation and rate design proceeding is commonly referred to as "Phase 2" of a utility's General Rate Case (GRC).2
Protests to A.08-03-002 were timely filed by DRA, TURN, Building Owners and Managers Association of California (BOMA), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and the Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC). SCE filed two separate replies to the protests-one addressed the protest filed by BOMA and the other addressed the protests filed by DRA, TURN, WRCOG, and EPUC.
On March 26, 2008, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling consolidating A.07-12-020 and A.08-03-002 for hearing and decision. A prehearing conference (PHC) was held on May 1, 2008.
An Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge's Scoping Memo and Ruling (Scoping Memo) was issued on May 14, 2008. The Scoping Memo confirmed the categorization of the proceeding and need for evidentiary hearings, defined the issues, established a schedule, and included time for parties to endeavor to settle disputed issues. The Scoping Memo also included four public participation hearings (PPHs). The PPHs were held in Compton,
San Clemente, Riverside, and Palmdale.3 Additionally, letters and electronic mail messages representing the views of SCE's ratepayers were received by the Commission.
Between November 2008 and January 2009, SCE and the active parties engaged in a series of settlement discussions. In light of these discussions, parties requested, and were granted, changes to the procedural schedule. Ultimately, the following six separate settlement agreements and supporting motions were filed with the Commission:
1. Revenue Allocation Settlement Agreement, filed January 9, 2009, by SCE, TURN, DRA, California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), Agricultural Energy Consumers Association (AECA), Federal Executive Agencies (FEA), California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), Energy Users Forum (EUF), Indicated Commercial Parties (ICP), California City-County Street Light Association (CAL-SLA), BOMA, EPUC, and Solar Alliance.
2. Street Light Rate Group Settlement Agreement, filed January 20, 2009, by SCE, CAL-SLA, and Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District (PVRPD).
3. Commercial Submetering Settlement Agreement, filed January 20, 2009, by SCE, Simon Property Group, and BOMA.
4. Residential and Small Commercial Rate Design Settlement Agreement, filed January 26, 2009, by SCE, DRA, TURN, Solar Alliance, and the Western Manufactured Housing Community Association (WMA).
5. Medium and Large Power Rate Group Rate Design Settlement Agreement, filed February 5, 2009, by SCE, FEA, CMTA, CLECA, EUF, Solar Alliance, BOMA, Debenham Energy, and EPUC.
6. Agriculture and Pumping Rate Group Rate Design Settlement Agreement, filed February 5, 2009, by SCE, AECA, and CFBF.
The settlement agreements are attached as Attachments B - G of this decision.
Evidentiary hearings were held on February 2-3, 2009 to address the following disputed issues:
1. Issues raised by Transphase Company (Transphase) relating to marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design for the large power rate groups and its questions related to the Revenue Allocation settlement agreement.
2. The request by Paramount Citrus Company, LoBue Bros., Inc, and Limoniera Company (collectively, Citrus Packers) to extend the availability of agricultural rate schedules to all customers who operate packing facilities.
An evidentiary hearing was held on February 9, 2009 to review the reasonableness of the settlement agreements and to schedule the remaining events for this proceeding. On March 4, 2009, the assigned Commissioner issued a ruling seeking comments on a schedule to design and adopt dynamic pricing rates for SCE. Phase 2 of the GRC was submitted on April 6, 2009.
1 The delivery component includes transmission, distribution and public purpose program charges.
2 SCE's Phase 1 GRC application, primarily addressing revenue requirements, was addressed in A.07-11-011.
3 The Compton and San Clemente PPHs addressed both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 applications.
