7. DRA Motion to Set Aside Submission and Reopen the Record

On October 31, 2011, DRA filed a Motion to Set Aside Submission and Reopen the Record for the Taking of Additional Evidence. DRA states its belief that submission of new evidence in its Motion is necessary in order for the Commission to have the best available data on which to base a decision in this proceeding.

The assigned ALJ shortened the time for responses to the motion. Responses in support of DRA's motion were filed on November 7, 2011 by the CSBRT/CSBA sociation and the Greenling Institute. PG&E filed a response opposing the Motion.

DRA seeks to submit the following documents as evidence in this proceeding:

1) CAISO MRTU Hourly Price Data from 2009-2011;

2) DRA "white paper", "Time-Variant Pricing for California's Small Business Customers", published in May 2011;

3) "2010 California Statewide Non-Residential Critical Peak Pricing Evaluation, April 1, 2011";

4) PG&E's "Peak-Day Pricing June 2010, December 2010, and June 2011 Semi-Annual Education and Outreach Assessment Reports";

5) Testimony of Andrew Bell in A.10-03-014;

6) A research paper: "Household Response to Dynamic Pricing of Electricity: A Survey of the Experimental Evidence," by Ahmad Faruqui and Sanem Sergici, January 10, 2009; and

7) Comparison of 2010 and 2011 PDP Event day CAISO MRTU hourly Price Data and A1-PDP retail CPP rate.

For the reasons detailed below, DRA's motion is denied. As PG&E succinctly observes, "DRA's Motion would deprive the parties, and the record itself, of the procedural process of testimony, discovery, responding testimony and cross-examination that are integral to the development of an evidentiary record."²⁴ While this proceeding could conceivably be delayed to provide for all of these steps, DRA has not made a convincing case that the delay in submitting this material was unavoidable, and therefore justifies reopening the record in this proceeding. Most importantly, as PG&E establishes in some detail, most of the material is not so new that DRA could not have offered it sooner: "DRA has not adequately explained why it did not reference the then-available documents in its February 4, 2011 petition to modify, or make its motion in the months since." Such a showing is required under Rule 13.14 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure.²⁵ PG&E also observes that DRA's Motion does not provide other parties adequate time to review or conduct discovery on the documents, or to present other documents that would be responsive to DRA's materials and possible assertions. We note that DRA will not face these restrictions in future PG&E rate design proceedings, which may be the more appropriate forum should it wish to offer similar evidence for the record.

²⁴ PG&E November 7, 2011 Response at 3.

²⁵ See Rule 13.14: The moving party must "explain why such evidence was not previously adduced."