2. Background and Procedural History
On March 6, 2009, the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application under its Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account (CEMA) for authorization to recover incremental disaster-related expenses and capital costs incurred in responding to seven 2007 Southern California fires (the 2007 Fires).1 SDG&E's application sought $6.8 million in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs and $43 million in Capital Costs, resulting in a cumulative revenue requirement of $32.2 million.2
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission (DRA) filed a protest to SDG&E's application on April 13, 2009. DRA correctly notes that SDG&E was a respondent in Investigation (I.) 08-11-006 and I.08-11-007, two investigations related to the Witch, Rice and Guejito fires. DRA argued that "[u]nderstanding the nature of the linkage between SDG&E's practices and facilities and the ignition of the Witch, Rice, and Guejito fires is a critical prerequisite to any meaningful CEMA reasonableness analysis... ." DRA therefore requested that this proceeding be held in abeyance pending resolution of I.08-11-006 and I.08-11-007.
A Prehearing Conference (PHC) was held on June 12, 2009. Over the course of discussions during the PHC, the question of whether or not the costs associated with the fires at issue in I.08-11-006 and I.08-11-007 could be viewed separately from the fire costs at issue in this proceeding was addressed. DRA argued that these costs could indeed be viewed separately and noted that as part of its discovery it had already asked the utility to disaggregate the costs at issue so as to facilitate a separate analysis of the fire costs.3
By ruling dated August 17, 2009, DRA was directed to file a report detailing its progress separating the costs of the fires at issue in I.08-11-006 and I.08-11-007 from the fire costs at issue in this proceeding, and to identify any unresolved discovery issues. DRA filed its report on September 23, 2009, and confirmed that it was able to successfully subdivide the O&M and Capital costs claimed by SDG&E for each fire.
At the direction of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), on December 22, 2009, SDG&E and DRA filed a report (Joint Report) outlining the parties' positions and developments relevant to the proceeding. Among other things, the Joint Report explains that the Commission's Consumer Protection and Safety Division (CPSD) and SDG&E reached an agreement that resolves both I.08-11-006 and I.08-11-007. 4 The Joint Report also states that the parties in this proceeding reached a preliminary agreement and were working on the exact language of a settlement agreement. SDG&E and DRA (Settling Parties) submitted a Joint Motion Requesting Approval of the Settlement Agreement (Joint Motion) on June 11, 2010.
On June 15, 2010, Ruth Henricks (Henricks) filed a motion for party status in this proceeding. The motion was granted by ALJ Farrar on June 21, 2010. A response in opposition to the Joint Motion (Opposition Motion) was submitted along with Henricks' motion for party status. Henricks' Opposition Motion opposed the Joint Motion on claims that the parties did not have a thorough understanding of the Application and therefore the Commission could not consider the proposed settlement as being in the public interest. Henricks requested a second PHC and the development of a more detailed record of the proceeding. SDG&E responded to Henricks' opposition on August 11, 2010.
1 In order of occurrence, at issue here at are the Witch, McCoy, Guejito, Coronado Hills, Rice, Poomacha, and Ammo fires.
2 This amount includes interest.
3 PHC Transcript at 29.
4 D.10-04-047, which resolved I.08-11-006 and I.08-11-007, issued on April 26, 2010.
