5. Standard of Review and Criteria for Review of Proposals

SoCalGas bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. The company's burden in this application is to establish that its proposal is reasonable, technically feasible, cost effective (i.e., beneficial to ratepayers), and consistent with the Commission's policy objectives.

In order to approve this application, we must find that the proposed AMI system affirmatively answers the following questions, as identified in the scoping memo:

1. Should the Commission approve SoCalGas's proposed AMI deployment activities and funding, either as proposed in this application or with modifications?

a. Are the various elements of the proposed SoCalGas AMI business case and deployment plan reasonable?

b. Are the technology choices proposed by SoCalGas appropriate and technically feasible? Specific elements of the technology plan that should be evaluated include (but are not limited to):

i. Is the proposed SoCalGas-only communication system reasonable? What if any additional communication options, such as shared communications infrastructure between SoCalGas and other utilities with overlapping jurisdictions, should be considered?

ii. Is the battery proposed to power the AMI system reasonable? What if any additional options for powering the meters and communications systems should be considered?

c. Is the SoCalGas AMI proposal for a gas-only AMI system consistent with state energy policy objectives or desirable for other policy reasons?

d. Is the SoCalGas AMI proposal cost-effective, and will it provide lasting value for SoCalGas's customers?

2. If the proposal meets all of the criteria listed in question 1, above, should the Commission adopt the ratemaking treatment proposed by SoCalGas for the recovery of costs associated with any approved AMI deployment activities?

Technology choices are discussed in Section 7 below. Consistency with state policy objectives is discussed in Section 8, and cost effectiveness issues are discussed in Section 9.