ALJ/MLC/tcg Mailed 10/28/2002

Decision 02-10-051 October 24, 2002

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) for Authority To Increase Its Authorized Level of Base Rate Revenue Under the Electric Revenue A.93-12-025 Adjustment Mechanism for Service Rendered Beginning January 1, 1995 and To Reflect This Increase in Rates.	Application 93-12-025 (Filed December 27, 1993)
Commission Order Instituting Investigation into the Rates, Charges and Practices of Southern I.94-02-002 California Edison Company, Establishment of the Utility's Revenue Requirement, and Attrition Request.	Investigation 94-02-002 (Filed February 3, 1994)
Application of SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902-E) for an Order Implementing Assembly Bill 265.	Application 00-10-045 (Filed October 24, 2000)
Application of SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902-E) for Authority to Implement an Electric Rate Surcharge to Manage the Balance in the Energy Rate Ceiling Revenue Shortfall Account.	Application 01-01-044 (Filed January 24, 2001)

OPINION ON REQUEST FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION

This decision grants $13,430.72 to The Utility Reform Network (TURN) for contributions to Decision (D.) 02-01-063. Compensation for work by TURN, Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet), and Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN) in Application (A.) 00-10-045 and A.01-01-044 is denied without prejudice, pending a Commission decision in that matter.

1. Background

On June 18, 2001, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sempra Energy and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). SDG&E then filed various proposals to implement provisions of the MOU.

SDG&E filed a petition to modify D.96-04-059 in order to implement certain provisions of the MOU, in A.93-12-025/I.94-02-002. D.96-04-059 had adopted a joint proposal of Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and SDG&E regarding San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) ratemaking treatment. The petition was resolved by D.02-01-063.

SDG&E filed to implement other provisions of the MOU in A.00-10-045/A.01-01-044, the proceeding designated to establish an interim electric surcharge to recover cost incurred by DWR on behalf of SDG&E customers. The Commission had previously adopted an interim rate in D.01-09-059. Aglet, TURN, and UCAN (Joint Intervenors) argued that SDG&E's filings to implement the MOU have created a new phase of the proceeding. The Commission has not yet issued a decision related to SDG&E's filings in A.00-10-045/A.01-01-044, but on January 23, 2002, during executive session, the Commission voted to reject a SDG&E offer to settle claims related to a petition for writ of review in the Court of Appeals; these claims concern intermediate term power procurement contracts (IT contracts). Joint Intervenors seek compensation for their contributions to the Commission's decision to reject the settlement.

On March 12, 2001, Aglet filed a timely notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) in A.00-10-045/A.01-01-044. After review of the NOI, Assigned Commissioner Wood found Aglet eligible to file for intervenor compensation by ruling dated April 30, 2001.

On October 5, 2001,UCAN filed a timely NOI in A.00-10-045/A.01-01-044. After review of the NOI, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wetzell found UCAN eligible to file for intervenor compensation by ruling dated October 30, 2001, but required UCAN to demonstrate financial hardship in its claim for compensation. TURN had been found eligible to file for intervenor compensation in A.93-12-025/I.94-02-002 by ruling dated March 15, 1994. On November 29, 2001, TURN filed an NOI in A.00-10-045/A.01-01-044, as directed by ALJ Wetzell's October 30, 2001 Ruling. After review of the NOI, ALJ Wetzell found TURN eligible to file for intervenor compensation by ruling dated February 4, 2002.

On May 17, 2002, ALJ Prestidge issued a ruling directing the Joint Intervenors to submit an analysis breaking down the compensation claimed between the efforts related to D.02-01-063 and the Commission's rejection of the proposed settlement of claims regarding the IT contracts. The ruling also indicated that we would take up the requests for these two subjects separately. On May 24, 2002, Aglet served a response on behalf of Joint Intervenors on ALJ Prestidge.