2. Background
The Commission granted two applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCNs) in proceedings related to the Antelope Transmission Project (ATP) in March 2007. The ATP comprises the first stage of a potential series of projects designed to deliver renewable energy resources from the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA) to SCE load centers. In A.07-12-007, the Commission considered Segment 1 of the ATP, the Antelope-Pardee 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission project, and granted a CPCN in D.07-03-012, mailed March 6, 2007. That decision set the maximum cost for Segment 1 at $92.5 million. In A.07-12-008, the Commission considered Segments 2 and 3 of the ATP, the Antelope-Vincent 500 kV transmission project and the Antelope-Tehachapi 500 kV transmission project, and granted a CPCN in D.07-03-045, mailed March 15, 2007. That decision set the maximum cost for Segment 2 at $63 million and for Segment 3 at $102.1 million. All of the maximum cost numbers were calculated in 2005 dollars and included pension and benefits, and administrative and general expenditures.1 Together, the maximum costs for Segments 1, 2, and 3 total $257.6 million in 2005 dollars.
On July 18, 2008, SCE filed separate petitions for modification of D.07-03-012 and D.07-03-045 (the Petitions). Most significantly, the Petitions request the Commission to establish a single budget for all three segments of the ATP and to increase the total maximum cost to $746 million in 2008 dollars, including pension and benefits, administrative and general expenditures, but excluding Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC). The Petitions also request specific routing and/or engineering changes. No party opposed the Petitions.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Victoria Kolakowski issued a ruling on October 6, 2008, ordering consolidation of the two proceedings because both Petitions sought as relief creation of a single maximum cost for the entire approved ATP. The ruling also ordered SCE to provide additional information to meet the requirements of Rule 16.4(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,2 including specific wording to carry out proposed modifications to the Decisions. No party objected to the consolidation, and SCE filed its response on November 5, 2008 (Response).
A proposed decision (PD) was issued on February 9, 2009. The PD was withdrawn based upon communications from SCE that it had additional updated information regarding the Petitions, specifically with reference to the AFUDC calculations and potential inconsistencies with another pending transmission CPCN application - A.07-06-031. SCE provided the updated information in an April 28, 2009 amendment to the Petitions (Amendment).
1 See Ordering Paragraph 5 in both D.07-03-012 and D. 07-03-045.
2 All further references to Rules are to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise noted.
