5. Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision
The alternate proposed decision (APD) of President Peevey in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments and/or replies were filed by SDG&E, Citizens and UCAN. Both SDG&E and Citizens presented arguments supporting the APD, while UCAN argued in favor of the proposed decision. In summary, the dispute between the parties' positions centers on whether the Commission's consideration of "public interest" is limited to "ratepayer interest" or whether public interest be viewed more broadly as the proponents of the APD request. After careful and thoughtful consideration of UCAN's arguments concerning the potential higher costs to state ratepayers for transmission service, the APD finds that the benefits from the Citizens' lease justify the approval of the DCA. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Ordering Paragraphs have been edited to reflect suggested changes from the comments.
In addition, SDG&E submitted new arguments supporting the lease agreement with Citizens based on SDG&E's agreement to pass on its
bonus-depreciation benefits from the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 201021 (Tax Relief Act) to Citizens' ratepayers. However, since this fact was not fully developed on the record and all parties did not have adequate time to comment on it, it will not be used by the Commission as an additional factor to support the DCA. However, since SDG&E proposed treating the bonus depreciation in this manner, this proposed treatment is included in an Ordering Paragraph so that if the APD is adopted, ratepayers can benefit from this tax treatment.
21 111 P.L.312, 2010 Enacted H.R.4852.
