2. Procedural Background
Resolution ALJ 176-3211 (April 10, 2008) categorized this proceeding as ratesetting and reached a preliminary determination that hearings would prove necessary to the resolution of this matter.
On May 5, 2008, a protest was filed by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) stating that
more in-depth review of SCE's filing in the following areas is necessary before DRA can determine whether it believes SCE's power procurement activities complied with Commission directives.1
On May 15, 2008, SCE filed a reply to the protest that argued for a specific timetable for resolving the issues in this proceeding.
On May 23, 2008, a prehearing conference (PHC) was held in San Francisco to address the issues concerning the management of this proceeding, including the alternative proposals concerning the scheduling of the proceeding.
On June 3, 2008, the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo refining the scope of the proceeding and adopting a schedule.2
By letter on August 11, 2008, DRA informed the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that it:
has conducted a thorough review of SCE's application, supporting testimony, and workpapers. SCE responded timely to DRA's seven data requests. Additionally, SCE arranged a tour for DRA staff of a solar facility at Kramer Junction, California, from which SCE contracts energy with FPL Energy. The site visit provided DRA an opportunity to observe how SCE manages generation resources.3
The letter concluded that:
Based on its review, DRA does not oppose the relief SCE is seeking in its application. Accordingly, DRA does not intend to serve prepared testimony in this proceeding and does not believe evidentiary hearings are necessary.4
Since DRA was the only interested party to this proceeding, as a result of the letter, SCE's application was unopposed.
On August 28, 2008, a Status Conference was held to determine the best approach to concluding this proceeding. At the proceeding, the DRA Letter was accepted into the record of the proceeding as Exhibit A and a briefing schedule was set.
On September 15, 2008, SCE filed its Opening Brief. In addition, on September 15, 2008, SCE filed a motion to offer its prepared testimony into evidence that included declarations of the SCE witnesses that the testimony was true and accurate.5 Also on September 15, 2008, SCE filed a motion to seal portions of the evidentiary record.6 There were no reply or rebuttal briefs.
1 Protest of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates at 2.
2 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo, June 3, 2008.
3 Letter of Division of Ratepayer Advocates to the Honorable Timothy J. Sullivan, Re: Southern California Edison's Application 08-04-001, Energy Resources Recovery Account Compliance Review, August 11, 2008, signed by Mitchell Shapson (DRA Letter) at 1.
4 DRA Letter at 2.
5 Motion of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) to Offer Prepared Testimony and Appendices into Evidence (Motion on Evidence), September 15, 2008.
6 Motion of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) to Seal a Portion of the Evidentiary Record (Motion to Seal), September 15, 2008.
