4. Discussion

Rule 16.4 governs the process for the filing and consideration of petitions for modification. Rule 16.4(b) requires that a petition for modification concisely state the justification for the proposed relief and propose specific wording for all requested modifications. As discussed above, SDG&E's Petition contained a concise but thorough statement of justification for the proposed modifications related to D.06-11-026. Given the timing of the multiple GRC's being processed by the Commission, in particular SDG&E's own TY 2012 GRC application, the Balancing Account will expire prior to a final decision being issued in A.10-12-005. Since SDG&E has requested that its Balancing Account be continued in its TY 2012 GRC application (pursuant to D.06-11-026), it is reasonable for SDG&E to request that the current term of the Balancing Account not expire until a determination is made regarding this proposal in the GRC.

Rule 16.4(d) states that if more than one year has elapsed since the effective date of the decision, then the petition must explain why it could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision. Since no one knew until March 2011 that SDG&E's TY 2012 GRC final decision would be issued after December 31, 2011, the expiration date of the Balancing Account, SDG&E could not have filed a petition for modification any earlier than that date. SDG&E has therefore provided justification for presenting the current petition more than one year after the effective date of D.06-11-026.

Therefore, SDG&E's Petition complies with the requirements of Rule 16.4 regarding the requested modifications to D.06-11-026. We also conclude that SDG&E's request to extend its Balancing Account through the later of December 31, 2011 or issuance of a Commission decision setting SDG&E's base rate revenue requirement in its TY 2012 GRC is reasonable. Because of the schedules and timing of both the SDG&E and SCE TY 2012 GRC's, and the fact that the current Balancing Account will expire before we will be able to rule on a more permanent extension in SDG&E's TY 2012 GRC, SDG&E's request for this interim extension is reasonable. We therefore adopt SDG&E's proposed modification of Finding of Fact 11 of D.06-11-026, and make one more modification on page 13 of D.06-11-026 (set out in Attachment A to this decision), so that the body of D.06-11-026 is consistent with the modified Finding of Fact 11.