5. Is it Reasonable to Permit SCE to Recover HECA Costs in Rates?
A critical issue before the Commission in any utility's request for the authorization to recover costs in rates is whether the costs are reasonable. This section will first discuss DRA's contention that the HECA project is so duplicative of other projects that the feasibility studies do not produce benefits that justify the costs. Subsequently, this section will address the costs and benefits associated with Phase I of the HECA project and then Phase II of the project.
5.1. Is the HECA Project So Duplicative of Other Projects That Feasibility Studies Fail to Produce Benefits that Justify Costs?
If the HECA project duplicates other projects, then the information benefits of feasibility studies and the FEED study are less valuable than information about a new or unique project or technology. A central issue in this proceeding, addressed by all active parties, is the uniqueness of the proposed HECA project.
DRA argues that:
The HECA study is exactly the same study that BP, Rio Tinto, and Edison Mission Group started in Southern California as the Carson Project. It is also duplicative of the study the Commission authorized SCE to conduct in A.07-05-020. Therefore, SCE's application should be denied in its entirety because SCE has not shown that the study it seeks to conduct with HEI is different from the study the Commission has already committed $46.7 million to support in D.08-04-038.23
Specifically, DRA contends that the HECA project is identical to a "project that began in Carson California...."24 As a consequence, DRA concludes that "[a]t the very least, Phase I for which SCE seeks recovery of $17 million, would have been completed under any timeline before February 20, 2009, because the Carson project began in 2006."25 DRA states that because the Carson and HECA projects are identical, this "points to the likelihood that the funds SCE contributes to the HECA feasibility study might be used to reimburse Edison Mission Group for its contributions to the Carson Project."26
TURN supports DRA's analysis, concluding that "the substantial weight of the evidence supports a finding that the HECA project is a continuation of the Carson project, albeit relocated."27
In addition, DRA contends that SCE did not present any evidence to address the possibility that the reports the ratepayers would fund in Phase I of the HECA study are not duplicative of the reports SCE was producing in its Clean Hydrogen Power Generation (CHPG) feasibility study. Finally, DRA argues that IGCC technology is not a new technology. DRA therefore concludes "In light of the fact that California ratepayers are already funding [a] $46.88 million IGCC feasibility study and the fact that IGCC technology is not new, the Commission should deny SCE's application for recovery of additional funds for the HECA Study ..."28
On this issue, SCE argues that:
... the existence of other contemplated projects similar in concept to HECA is irrelevant. No party can dispute that HECA will be a first-of-a-kind facility in California, that the HECA feasibility study is site specific, and that as a result, it is necessary to complete the study to determine the technical feasibility and commercial reasonableness of a HECA facility in California. No other IGCC or other large, complex, new technology, power generation facility has been advanced to the point where technical and economic feasibility is proven without performing a site-specific FEED [front end engineering design] or other detailed engineering and design study.29
In making this point, SCE cites the testimony of its witness, Dr. Cortez, that "there is no project that compares to the HECA project, which is a unique, first-of-a-kind project that is designed with technology elements that is unlike any other project under development by HEI or anyone else."30 HEI similarly cites this testimony in support of the uniqueness of this project.31
Concerning the Carson Project, SCE cites the testimony of the SCE and HEI witness, Jonathan Briggs, who "explained that differences in the location, scope, and participants make the Carson project `a very different project as compared to [the] project we're considering in the HECA feasibility study,' and those differences `drive different components of the study.' "32
HEI supports SCE's analysis, and points out that the Carson Project was cancelled in 2007.33
Concerning the second project, the CHPG project, SCE argues that the HECA project does not duplicate it. SCE states that:
As noted in Exhibit SCE-2, HECA (located in Kern County, California) and CHPG (located in Utah) have very different siting, permitting and transmission requirements, and plant parameters. Accordingly, the site-specific feasibility work cannot simply be applied from one study to the other.34
HEI also agrees with SCE that CHPG and HECA are very different. HEI notes that CHPG is a coal fed project, while HECA uses petroleum coke. HEI also points out the Utah and California sites are very different, as are the permitting, transmission, and commercial issues. CHPG does not involve enhanced oil recovery, and, among other things, the Utah site is at high altitude.35
Finally, SCE states that no funding will be used to reimburse the Edison Mission Group and that "there is no connection (nor any evidence of a connection) between SCE's cofunding and Edison Mission Group. SCE's ratepayer co-funding will cover only HECA feasibility study activities."36
The weight of the evidence supports the contention that the HECA project is a unique project, and different from either the Carson Project or the CHPG project.
The testimony in support of the uniqueness of the project was very credible. SCE's witness is a national expert that is familiar with IGCC plants. His "survey of the entire IGCC scene in the US today" found that "there is no project that compares to the HECA project, which is a unique, first-of-a-kind project that is designed with technology elements that is unlike any project under development by HEI or any one else."37
Moreover, throughout the evidentiary hearings, it became clear that the IGCC and carbon sequestration technologies are at a stage where the design of a project, even one without cutting edge elements, presents unique technical and design challenges depending on the nature of the fuel and the geology of the site, which affect both the recovery and use of fuel and the sequestration of carbon.
Because of the novelty of this technology, neither the feasibility studies nor the FEED study constitutes project development as discussed in D.06-05-016. These studies are both necessary to determine whether there is a project at all.
The CHPG project is also very different from the HECA project. HECA will be a 250 megawatt (MW) facility designed for EOR at a specific site in Kern County, California, and will determine the viability of oil and gas geological formations for carbon sequestration. CHPG is a 500 MW coal-fed project, without EOR, in Utah, and the carbon sequestration will involve an as yet uncharacterized saline formation - not a depleted oil and gas reservoir.
The Carson Project and the HECA project are very different. First, the Carson Project is cancelled. The cancellation alone makes it very different. The Carson Project is also located in an urban area - Los Angeles County. Second, although the knowledge gained from a project like the Carson Project is clearly valuable for the development of IGCC projects such as HECA, the testimony of HEI that the "location, scope and participants" leads to a "very different project"38 and has consequences for the overall project was compelling. Specifically, locating such a project in Carson California, the heart of the Los Angeles basin, a congested urban setting with bad air quality, raises design and permitting issues that are far different from those raised by the HECA project, which is located in a rural area of California.
These differences led to testimony by the HEI witness, who was involved in both projects, that the Carson and the HECA project are very different. For example, consider the following exchange:
[Mr. Obiora, for DRA] Q Right. But you stated in your answer that the components of this project are different from the components of the Carson Project. I know the components of this project based on the information in this application. I'm trying to get, so I can make that determination for myself, what in your opinion were the components of the Carson Project?
[Mr. Briggs, for HEI] A Well, it's worth recognizing that the Carson Project was a very different project just by its location, its design, its scope, its participants. All of those will [sic] have made it a very different project as compared to a project that we're considering with the HECA Feasibility Study that has a very different design, location, participants, scale. And on the basis of each one of those components, the specific work would be very different. It would drive different components of the study. But as we've said in our testimony, the basic knowledge gained from attempting to progress and assess the feasibility of an IGC study with carbon capture and storage was useful in the development of future projects like HECA.39
Thus, for HEI, there are major differences between the Carson Project and HECA. For SCE, these differences are even greater. SCE was not involved in the Carson Project, which was a project of Mission Energy, and SCE had no knowledge of the project beyond press reports.40
Finally, there is no evidence that provides support for DRA's allegation that SCE's co-funding of the project will be used to reimburse Edison Mission Group. We see no connection between SCE's co-funding of the HECA project and Edison Mission Group. In the absence of any contravening evidence, SCE's pledge that "ratepayer co-funding will cover only HECA feasibility study activities" is credible.41 Moreover, if DRA finds evidence of a transfer of funds to Edison Mission Group, DRA can bring this information before the Commission in the future - for example, at the time of the ERRA proceeding, which reviews the movement of costs into rates.
5.2. Are SCE's Phase I Costs Reasonable?
A central question in this proceeding is whether it is appropriate for SCE to recover the $17 million Phase I costs to participate in the HECA feasibility studies. We discuss the position of parties and then decide this matter.
SCE holds that it is reasonable for it to recover the Phase I costs. SCE argues that the vetting of the Phase I costs "has occurred and the SCE submission supporting Resolution E-4227A has been substantiated through this proceeding" and therefore "it is appropriate for the Commission to authorize SCE to recover the $17 million in costs that the Commission directed SCE to contribute to Phase I..."42
SCE supports its position by contending that the project will provide ratepayer benefits. SCE argues:
First, the feasibility study is consistent with Commission and State policy on GHG [Green House Gas] reduction, including AB 32, AB 1925, SB 1368, and Executive Orders S-7-04 and S-3-05. If the feasibility study demonstrates that HECA is technically feasible and commercially reasonable, the HECA facility will provide a unique, first-of-a-kind opportunity to advance these environmental and energy security policies and initiatives.43
SCE further notes that "the $30 million in ratepayer funding represents only 20% of the overall HECA feasibility study budget" thereby leveraging the ratepayer investment.44 SCE argues that "if it [the project] is shown to be technically feasible and commercially reasonable, HECA as an in-state facility will provide significant benefits for California, including a cleaner environment, numerous clean-energy jobs, ..." and other benefits.45 SCE also argues that by participating in these studies, SCE will benefit ratepayers by enhancing its "overall knowledge regarding IGCC and CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] technologies" and by providing for "future baseload needs" with "clean generation characteristics."46
HEI also argues that the project provides many benefits to California and to California ratepayers. HEI points out that the feasibility studies "will employ over 100 California-based professionals, stimulate continued private investment in California, and position California for future job growth as a leader in developing CCS [Carbon Capture and Sequestration] technology."47 HEI argues further that "[r]egardless of the ultimate results concerning technical feasibility and commercial reasonableness, the information disclosed will help advance the technology with the clean energy sector and SCE's ratepayers will receive the benefit of an informed utility that will be better positioned to participate in HECA or other IGCC with CCS offerings."48
HEI further argues that the HECA project itself, if built, offers significant benefits:
HECA could reduce GHGs: reduce California's reliance on foreign crude imports by increasing in-state crude production through EOR utilizing CO2 [carbon dioxide]; generate additional tax revenue...; add hundreds of permanent new jobs; ... and avoid emissions....49
Finally, HEI argues that "all qualitative analyses support the application and quantitative analyses are not possible for studies."50 Because these are feasibility studies, it is not possible to know the costs and benefits at this stage of the project.
DRA argues that "SCE has not shown that it actually incurred any costs in the HECAMA account that were prospective from the date that Resolution E-4227A was issued."51 As a consequence, DRA concludes that authorizing recovery of costs "would constitute impermissible retroactive ratemaking."52 DRA argues that "all these reports have essentially been prepared and are simply awaiting delivery to SCE upon the certain conditions."53
DRA further argues that "even if the Commission finds that recovery of HECA is not retroactive ratemaking," that "SCE presented no evidence upon which the costs recorded to Phase I of the HECAMA could be deemed reasonable."54 More specifically, DRA argues that "the Commission would have to examine the deliveries that SCE received in Phase I to determine if they were in fact what SCE was authorized to fund in Resolution E-4227A or some other Study."55 Furthermore, DRA argues that "[t]he Commission cannot also authorize recovery of any funds that SCE has not yet paid,"56 arguing that recovery of these funds "presents a far different situation than those instances where the Commission has essentially evaluated the reasonableness of a contract and thus authorized the recovery of the funds required for the performance of the contract."57
TURN argues that "the record in this proceeding raises substantial doubts about the reasonableness of SCE's request."58 Concerning costs, TURN argues that "the absence of such information in the record here means, quite simply, that the Commission does not have a sufficient basis for finding the costs (or any portion thereof) to be reasonable, and, therefore, eligible for rate recovery."59 Concerning the testimony of Cortez, whom SCE hired to conduct an evaluation of the HECA project, TURN argues "his credentials do not permit relying on his review or his opinion as a basis for finding the study costs eligible for rate recovery."60
Finally, TURN argues that "SCE has failed to demonstrate that the costs are reasonable, or that the ratepayer benefits from the feasibility study are likely to exceed those costs."61 Specifically, TURN argues that the budget has insufficient detail, and "because SCE failed to present sufficiently detailed budget information, the Commission should decide that utility has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of reasonableness."62 Concerning the benefits, TURN argues that "SCE has failed to demonstrate sufficient benefits incremental to the performance of the HECA Feasibility Study itself to support a finding that the benefits warrant ratepayer incurrence of the SCE share of the study costs."63
First, permitting SCE to recover the Phase I costs of participating in the HECA project does not constitute retroactive ratemaking.
As the uncontested timeline above makes clear, SCE did not sign the agreement with HEI nor did it provide any money to HEI until after the Commission adopted Resolution E-4227A. Moreover, SCE did not acquire access to HEI's feasibility studies until SCE provided financial support for that information and for participation in the HECA project. The fact that HEI had already begun work on the feasibility studies prior to the adoption of Resolution E-4227A is no more relevant to the issue of retroactive ratemaking than is the fact that a gas supplier has pumped gas from the ground before its sale to SCE for the generation of power. In both cases, what matters is whether SCE's action follows a grant of Commission authority to establish a memorandum account for the tracking of costs.
The "service" provided by HEI to SCE was access to the information and participation in the HECA project. That access and participation followed Commission approval to enter into the contract, to establish a memorandum account, and to book the costs to that account. Consequently, a decision to permit the recovery of those costs that were incurred following the signing of the contract between HEI and SCE and after the establishment of a memorandum account for tracking cost does not constitute retroactive ratemaking.
Concerning the reasonableness of the HECA costs, SCE's case rises and falls on the testimony of Cortez. Cortez was retained by SCE as its representative to review the HECA project on SCE's behalf. The testimony of Cortez concluded that "SCE's investment in the HECA Study (Phase I and Phase II) represents fair and good value and represent a minority share of the total Phase I and Phase II budget."64 In addition, Cortez testified that SCE's funding of the HECA project allowed it to participate in an IGCC that was state of the art, and that of all the IGCC studies going forward throughout the nation, every one "of the feasibility studies were funded essentially 100-percent ratepayer funding."65 According to Cortez, within this context, SCE's payment of only 20 percent of the total is "a good deal for California consumer, in my judgment."66 In addition, Cortez testified that the budget for the studies contained "very detailed documents that described the scope of work, the tasks, the organization to exercise this study, to implement it, as well as detailed budgets that were presented over roughly a three-year period on a monthly basis"67 and that is consistent with industry practice, "typical" for "studies like this...."68
Although TURN argued that the Commission should not rely on the opinion of Cortez, we disagree. Cortez's training, experience, and credible testimony as a witness warrant reliance on his testimony. As a witness, Cortez responded to questions with detailed information explaining exactly how he reviewed costs, budgets, and his basis for judging them to be reasonable. From his testimony and background, it is clear that in the area of IGCC technology, Cortez is among the top two or three individuals in the nation and that he has followed this technology throughout his professional career.69 In addition to his credible testimony, we note that SCE relied on his conclusions to guide its investment. It is reasonable for this Commission to rely on his testimony as well.
Concerning the benefits produced by the feasibility studies, they are indeed not quantified, but are nevertheless substantial. As SCE and HECA point out, the use of IGCC technology with carbon capture and sequestration is a technology that holds promise of reducing GHGs. California statutes, including Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats. 2006, Ch. 488), AB1925 (Stats. 2006, Ch. 47-1), Senate Bill (SB) 1368 (Stats. 2006, Ch. 598) and Executive Orders S-7-04 and S-3-05, call for GHG reduction. With such clear legislative and executive direction, it becomes the responsibility of the Commission and California utilities to devise strategies that can reach these legislative goals, even without the quantification of benefits. In this context, the HECA project, which is a first-of-a-kind opportunity to advance environmental and energy policies, produces benefits that warrant its pursuit.
Moreover, when legislation adopts goals that require new technologies to achieve them, it is not reasonable to demand that a feasibility analysis of the new technology provide the Commission with the same level of detail on costs and benefits that the Commission would expect from the use of a more traditional technology.
In summary, authorizing the recovery of the Phase I costs does not constitute retroactive ratemaking. In addition, based on substantial evidence in the record, the Phase I costs for the basic feasibility studies are reasonable. Finally, the prospect of determining whether the technology of IGCC with carbon sequestration and EOR in the Kern County setting can provide power while making progress on the legislatively mandated goal of reducing GHG justifies SCE's phase I expenditures.
5.3. Are SCE's Phase II Costs Reasonable?
Depending on the outcome of the feasibility studies, the HECA project may proceed to the next phase (Phase II) in which HEI would prepare a FEED engineering study. Under the terms of the agreement, SCE will be responsible for an additional $13 million. The second major issue in this proceeding is whether these Phase II costs are reasonable.
SCE argues that its "costs for Phase II are also reasonable."70 SCE first argues that funding Phase II is implicitly authorized in Resolution E-4227A because Phase I costs total $17 million and "because the Commission authorized SCE to record $30 million in the HECAMA, the Commission authorized SCE to participate in Phase II."71
SCE further argues that the proposed payment schedule is reasonable, citing the testimony of Cortez:
First, the schedule is tied to specific milestones, so that Edison is not making payments until they have received the product, the reports, or the events that are key milestones in the feasibility study;
Number two, the schedule of payments at all times leaves Edison in a minority - a very small minority position in terms of their investment relative to the private at-risk capital that's being invested.72
SCE concludes that it "will have sufficient information to determine whether to proceed to Phase II when the milestones for Phase I are met."73
Finally, SCE argues that "Phase II is necessary to determine the technical feasibility and commercial reasonableness" of the project.74 In particular, SCE argues that the FEED engineering study includes "new detailed engineering activities to address all aspects of the project, including all technical, operational, environmental, and commercial issues."75 SCE concludes that "the Phase II study is necessary to determine the capital cost and commercial reasonableness of HECA."76
HEI argues that FEED costs are not project development costs, but are instead feasibility costs. This distinction is important because D.06-05-016 states that "project development costs for proposed new projects should not be specifically included in rates."77 HEI then notes that FEED and Ability-to-Permit Assessment were deemed not project development costs in D.08-04-038. HEI further argues that Resolution E-4227A found that "Phase I of the HECA Study does not include project development costs as discussed in D.06-05-016."78
HEI also argues that the costs associated with the Application for Certification (AFC), which was made to the California Energy Commission (CEC), are also not project development costs. HEI states that the "AFC was filed with the CEC to test permitting feasibility and is an integral part of the HECA feasibility study."79 HEI also notes that the Scoping Ruling in this proceeding stated "there is no project now before [the Commission] - only a study."80
Finally, HEI argues that the Phase II costs are necessary, in part because the CHPG work "is not a reasonable substitute for Phase II of the HECA feasibility study."81 HEI states that "the CHPG and the HECA projects have very different site characteristics, permitting requirements, transmission requirements, technological configuration and commercial issues and thus each requires its own FEED study to address its specific issues and challenges."82
DRA, in contrast, argues against authorizing "recovery of the funds for Phase II of HECA feasibility study as inconsistent with law."83 Specifically, DRA argues that authorizing SCE to proceed with Phase II is inconsistent with Resolution E-4227A, which DRA cites:
SCE and HEI are not obligated to commence with Phase II and may choose not to do so, based on the results of Phase I and the availability of adequate funding assurance. Phase II will consist of Front End Engineering Design reports.84
DRA argues "[w]hy should the Commission authorize recovery in rates for funds that may not be expended should SCE and HEI ultimately decide not to commence Phase II?"85
DRA argues further that "SCE's request for recovery of Phase II Costs seeks to place the reasonableness of those costs in a completely different proceeding because those costs have not yet been incurred."86 DRA concludes that these costs should not be considered in this proceeding.
Finally, DRA argues that "SCE conceded that it has not presented any evidence in this proceeding with which the Commission may make a determination that costs `to be incurred' in Phase II of the feasibility study are reasonable."87
TURN also argues against authorizing recovery of Phase II costs. First, TURN argues that "SCE's showing in support of the Phase 2 costs of the HECA feasibility study shares the same infirmities as those described" pertaining to Phase I.
Furthermore, TURN argues against "the request for a finding of reasonableness for Phase II costs because the request is premature and inadequately formed at this juncture."88 TURN points out that "SCE cannot at this juncture describe with certainty what costs will be incurred..."89 and therefore question "how the Commission can approve such costs for rate recovery."90
TURN also joins DRA in questioning whether the Phase II costs constitute "specific project development."91
As a result of these considerations, TURN argues that "the Commission should deny rate recovery of the Phase 2 costs, even if it permits rate recovery of any portion of the Phase 1 costs."92
As many parties have noted, an analysis of the reasonableness of the Phase II costs is very similar to the analysis of the Phase I costs. In our discussion of the Phase I costs, we find that SCE's participation in the HECA project provides SCE with direct experience in an advanced IGCC project with carbon sequestration. This experience, and the resulting studies, will give SCE experience with a technology that offers the prospects of meeting California's energy needs while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions.
Moreover, as we noted in the discussion of Phase I costs, SCE has provided expert testimony that the terms of its agreement with HEI provide "good value"93 for the ratepayer funds that it commits to the project.
Resolution E-4227A authorized SCE to book up to $30 million into the HECAMA to cover Phase I and Phase II costs and to seek recovery of these costs in an application. Specifically, Resolution E-4227A states that the Commission:
approves a memorandum account to record the costs of this study and any costs spent on Phase II, and further determines that SCE must file an application in order to request recovery of these costs.94
This application is considering the reasonableness of these proposed Phase II costs. DRA's argument that authorizing SCE to proceed with Phase II is inconsistent with Resolution E-4227A runs directly counter to the plain language of the resolution.
The testimony in this proceeding makes clear that the schedule of payments is reasonable. The project uses the results of earlier feasibility tests to determine whether to undertake subsequent studies. Thus, rather than offer a project that proceeds in lockstep through a series of studies, the project spreads the tasks and costs out over time and only incurs new costs for further studies when the project reveals itself to be promising.
Pursuing the project makes sense only if it is technically and commercially feasible. The fact that Phase II will proceed only if the Phase I shows that the project is promising in part indicates the reasonableness of the study plan. The detailed FEED engineering study will be conducted only if the initial analysis shows the likelihood that the project will prove technically and commercially feasible. DRA's objection that the Commission should not authorize recovery for funds that may not be expended is inapposite - if the funds are not spent, their recovery will not be made because the initial analysis will not justify it. Moreover, delaying action on whether to spend more funds until more information from the initial analysis is available helps ensure that reasonableness of the use of the Phase II funds.
In arguments similar to those proposed by DRA, TURN objects to determining that the expenses of Phase II are reasonable at this time or constitute specific project development.
FEED costs, however, are not project development costs, as determined by a prior Commission decision.95 Specifically, D.08-04-038 found that
... all activities associated with the feasibility study are to support new generation and not associated with a proposed project. As such, the costs associated with Property and Commodity Options, FEED Study and Ability-to-Permit Assessment are not "project development" costs.96
Thus, DRA and TURN attempt to reargue a matter already decided by this Commission.
Finally, although TURN renews its objection that SCE has not provided adequate information to support the determination of the reasonableness of its costs - whether for Phase I or Phase II - we once again find the expert testimony of SCE's witnesses to be persuasive and adequate to support a determination that it is reasonable to authorize SCE to recover up to $13 million in costs for Phase II costs of the HECA feasibility studies recorded or to be recorded in the HECAMA, subject to a reasonableness review in a future ERRA reasonableness proceeding.
23 DRA Opening Brief at 25.
24 Id. at 26.
25 Id. at 26-27.
26 Id. at 27.
27 TURN Opening Brief at 27.
28 DRA Opening Brief at 29.
29 SCE Opening Brief at 30.
30 Transcript (TR) at 70 (Dr. Cortez, SCE), cited in SCE Opening Brief at 29-30.
31 HEI Opening Brief at 20.
32 SCE Opening Brief at 27-28, citing TR 181.
33 HEI Opening Brief at 24.
34 SCE Reply Brief at 28, citing SCE-2 at 9, TR at 278 and TR at 281.
35 HEI Opening Brief at 24.
36 SCE Reply Brief at 30.
37 TR 70.
38 HEI Opening Brief at 25.
39 TR 180:22 to TR 181: 17.
40 See, e.g., RT 264:20-24 (Nelson/SCE): "I am aware of the BP Carson Project only through public and general company information."
41 SCE Reply Brief at 30.
42 SCE Opening Brief at 10.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 11.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 HEI Opening Brief at 7-8.
48 Id. at 8.
49 Id. at 9.
50 Id at 10.
51 DRA Opening Brief at 10.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 13.
54 Id. at 17.
55 Id. at 18.
56 Id. at 19.
57 Id. at 20.
58 TURN Opening Brief at 8.
59 Id. at 9.
60 Id. at 12.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 17.
63 Id. at 18.
64 Ex SCE-1 Attachment 3 at 12.
65 TR 116:28-117:2.
66 TR 117:15-16.
67 TR 61:17-21.
68 TR 61: 23-24.
69 Douglas Cortez holds a doctorate and master's in chemical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a bachelor's of science in chemical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a registered chemical engineer in the state of California. He has 35 years of experience in electrical power, petroleum refining, chemical production and synthetic fuels industry. He has worked at Fluor and Tosco.
70 SCE Opening Brief at 23.
71 Id. at 24.
72 Id. at 24-25, citing TR 84:10-14, 84:17-20.
73 Id. at 25.
74 Id. at 26.
75 Id. at 27 citing Ex. SCE-2 at 11.
76 Id. at 27.
77 D.06-05-016 at 53.
78 HEI Opening Brief at 15 citing Resolution E-4227A at Finding 3.
79 HEI Opening Brief at 15 citing Exhibit SCE-2 at 11:5-6.
80 Scoping Memo at 8.
81 HEI Opening Brief at 17.
82 Id. at 17.
83 DRA Opening Brief at 21.
84 Id. at 21-22, citing Resolution E-4227A.
85 Id. at 22.
86 Id. at 23.
87 Id. at 25.
88 TURN Opening Brief at 21.
89 Id. at 22.
90 Id.
91 Id. at 23.
92 Id.
93 Ex SCE-1 Attachment 3 at 12.
94 Resolution E-4227A at 1.
95 D.08-04-038.
96 D.08-04-038 at 18.
