2. Procedural Background
PG&E's GRC is considered in two phases-Phase 1 addresses revenue requirement issues and Phase 2 addresses marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design issues. This proceeding addresses the Phase 2 issues. PG&E's Phase 2 application was filed on March 22, 2010. In support of its request, PG&E provided testimony on marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design proposals.
Protests were timely filed on April 26, 2010, and PG&E replied on May 6, 2010. A prehearing conference for Phase 2 was held on May 19, 2010. On May 26, 2010, the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo was issued. The Scoping Memo, among other things, categorized this proceeding as ratesetting, identified the relevant issues, and set a schedule. A separate Phase 3 was created to consider dynamic pricing issues. Phase 2 was further bifurcated to separately address residential rate design issues on a priority basis. Non-residential rate design issues, as well as revenue allocation and marginal cost issues are deferred to a later sub-phase.
The sub-phase limited to residential rate design issues is the sole subject of this decision. PG&E served updated opening testimony on June 30, 2010. Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) served testimony on September 8, 2010, and other parties served testimony on October 6, 2010. A settlement conference was held on October 13, 2010. PG&E served rebuttal testimony on October 29, 2010. PG&E and interested parties did not reach a settlement on residential rate design issues.
Evidentiary hearings on residential rate design issues were held on November 12, 15, 18, 19, and 22, 2010. Opening briefs were filed on December 20, 2010, and reply briefs were filed on January 10, 2011. Intervenors sponsoring testimony on residential rate design issues in addition to DRA were The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Greenlining Institute (Greenlining), Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA), Solar Alliance, Vote Solar, Sierra Club California (Sierra Club), KernTax, Kern County, California Large Energy Consumers Association/California Manufacturers and Technology Association, (CELCA/CMTA), City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) and Marin Energy Authority (MEA). Southern California Edison (SCE) also sponsored testimony and briefs.
The Commission held eleven public participation hearings (PPHs) throughout PG&E's service territory during May and June of 2010, the scope of which included notice of PG&E's Phase 2 application.2 The views and concerns presented at the PPHs relating to PG&E's rate design proposals were considered in reviewing the rate design issues in this proceeding. At the PPHs, 14.5 percent of the speakers expressed opposition to PG&E's rate design proposals. A majority of such speakers spoke on low-income consumer issues.
2 The public participation hearings were noticed as part of two different PG&E applications, namely Phase 1 of the 2011 Test Year General Rate Case (A. 09-12-020) and the Gas Transmission and Storage proceeding (A. 09-09-013). The notice setting the dates and times for the PPHs also provided notice of PG&E's Phase 2 application which is the subject of the instant decision.
