7. Standard of Review
SCE bears the burden of proof in this proceeding. SCE's burden in this application is to establish that its proposal is cost effective, and meets the Commission's criteria for functionality and reasonableness.
In order to approve this application, we must find that the proposed AMI system affirmatively answers the following questions:
a. Does the proposal satisfy State Energy Policy Objectives?
b. Are the various elements of SCE's AMI business case and deployment plan reasonable?
c. Is SCE's AMI proposal cost-effective, and will it provide lasting value for SCE's customers?
d. Is SCE's AMI technology selection reasonable based on the AMI technologies available in the market?
Items a. and d. are discussed in Section 12, below. In order to assess Items b. and c., we will analyze the settlement agreement between DRA and SCE, and the stipulations between SCE and TURN, and compare them to the parties' initial litigation positions. The standard of review for the settlement agreement is established in Rule 12.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which states that "[t]he Commission will not approve settlements, whether contested or uncontested, unless the settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest."20 Because all elements of the stipulations are also part of the settlement agreement,21 all issues that are contained in the stipulations are considered to be uncontested issues; these issues are discussed in Section 10 below. The remaining contested issues, generally those contained in the settlement but not in the stipulations, will be reviewed individually for reasonableness in Section 9 below.
20 Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 12.1(d). ( http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/RULES_PRAC_PROC/70731.htm#P765_142281)
21 RT, pp. 4-5.
