Decision 09-09-049 September 24, 2009
Before The Public Utilities Commission Of The State Of California
Application of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network for Rehearing of Resolution E-4227A Approving in Part and Denies in Part Southern California Edison's Request to Establish a Memorandum Account and Recover up to $30 Million in Costs For a California IGCC Study. |
Application 09-04-006 |
ORDER MODIFYING RESOLUTION E-4227A,
AND DENYING REHEARING OF RESOLUTION, AS MODIFIED
I. SUMMARY
In Resolution E-4227A (or "Resolution"), we approved the request of Southern California Edison Company ("Edison") for a new memorandum account ("memo account") and to track up to $30 million in payments related to a Hydrogen Energy California ("HECA") study. The costs were to be tracked in a HECA memorandum account ("HECAMA") in two parts: $17 million in costs for Phase I, and $13 million in costs for Phase II. Furthermore, we denied Edison's request to recover funds through an advice letter, and limited the amount spent by Edison, subject to recovery through a formal application process.
On April 3, 2009, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates ("DRA") and The Utility Reform Network ("TURN") (or collectively, "rehearing applicants") filed an application for the rehearing of Resolution E-4227A. In this rehearing application, DRA and TURN allege that the Commission has violated the advice letter process established in General Order 96-B by permitting Edison to establish a memo account and record costs. (Rehrg. App., p. 1.) The application for rehearing also alleges that the Commission has violated the due process of interested parties by prejudging the outcome of any future application by Edison to recover funds, without notice and opportunity for interested parties to be heard, and that the Resolution erroneously relied on information outside the record to approve of the memo account. (Rehrg. App., pp. 2-3.)
Edison filed a response in opposition to DRA and TURN's rehearing application on April 10, 2009. In its response, Edison argues that the rehearing application was not timely filed, and thus, the application for rehearing should be denied as untimely. (Edison Response to Rehrg. App., pp. 4-5.) We believe that the rehearing application was timely filed. Resolution E-4227A was mailed (i.e. issued) on March 4, 2009. (Resolution E-4227A, p. 1.) DRA and TURN's application was filed on April 3, 2009. The application was therefore timely filed within the statutory limit, thirty days later. (Pub. Util. Code, §1731(b).)
We have reviewed each and every allegation raised in the application for rehearing. We find no merit to any of these allegations. However, for the purposes of clarification, we will modify the Resolution in the manner specified below. Rehearing of Resolution E-4227A, as modified, is denied.
