ALJ/RMD/tcg Date of Issuance 11/24/2009

Decision 09-11-031 November 20, 2009

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U338E) for Authority to, Among Other Things, Increase Its Authorized Revenues For Electric Service in 2009, And to Reflect That Increase In Rates.

Application 07-11-011
(Filed November 19, 2007)

And Related Matters.

Investigation 08-01-026
(Filed January 31, 2008)

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO GREENLINING INSTITUTE FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 09-03-025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO
GREENLINING INSTITUTE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO DECISION 09-03-025 1 1

1. Background 2 2

2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation 3 3

2.1. Preliminary Procedural Issues 5 5

3. Substantial Contribution 6 6

4. Contributions of Other Parties 11 11

5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation 12 12

5.1. Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary for Substantial Contribution 14 14

5.1.1. Executive Compensation 14 14

5.1.2. Philanthropy 16 16

5.1.3. Supplier Diversity 17 17

5.1.4. Workforce Diversity 17 17

5.1.5. Rate Increase and Low Income Customers 18 18

5.1.6. Preparation of Intervenor Compensation Request 19 19

5.2. Intervenor Hourly Rates 19 19

5.3. Direct Expenses 21 21

6. Productivity 21 21

7. Award 22 22

8. Comments on Proposed Decision 23 23

9. Assignment of Proceeding 23 23

Findings of Fact 24 24

Conclusions of Law 24 24

ORDER 24 24

Appendix A

Appendix B

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO GREENLINING INSTITUTE FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 09-03-025

This decision awards Greenlining Institute (Greenlining) $141,771.75 for its substantial contributions to Decision (D.) 09-03-025. This represents a decrease of $155,032.62, or 52% from the amount requested due to lack of substantial contribution, in certain areas, by Greenlining in D.09-03-025 and adjustments of hourly rates. Today's award will be paid by Southern California Edison Company.

1. Background

On November 19, 2007, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed its test year (TY) 2009 general rate case (GRC) application. In support of its application, SCE provided over 8,500 pages of testimony and sponsored testimony by more than 100 witnesses. In addition to the applicant and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), 20 other parties participated in this case. The prehearing conference (PHC) was held on January 15, 2008. The presiding officer was Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Regina M. DeAngelis and the assigned Commissioner was President Michael R. Peevey. The Scoping Memo was issued on February 7, 2008. The scoping memo stated that the purpose of this proceeding was to determine:

(a) The just and reasonable test year revenue requirement for 2009 inclusive of all operating expenses and capital costs. This includes the costs of all operating or customer-related programs necessary to provide safe and reliable utility service in the test year.

(b) A just and reasonable post-test year ratemaking mechanism to adjust annual revenue requirements in subsequent years until the Commission adopts a test year revenue requirement in a subsequent proceeding.

On March 26, 2008, an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling was issued, permitting parties to address the issues of corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility as well.

On March 17, 2009, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 09-03-025, authorizing a $4.829 billion base revenue requirement for test year 2009 for SCE. The Commission found that the authorized revenue requirement provided SCE with sufficient funding to provide safe and reliable service at just and reasonable rates.

Greenlining Intitute's (Greenlining) participation focused on the issues of executive compensation, philanthropy and corporate giving, supplier diversity, workforce diversity, and the overall rate increase. The Commission adjusted SCE's requested level of executive compensation, based on testimony submitted by Greenlining, as well as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN).¹ With regards to philanthropy and corporate giving, the Commission recognized Greenlining's participation, but concluded that there was no issue. With regards to supplier diversity, the Commission also recognized Greenlining's participation, but concluded that there were no issues. The Commission made no mention of Greenlining's contribution in any adjustment to the overall rate request.

¹ D.09-03-025 at 134.