III. Motions

A. IEP's Motion for Un-redacted Copy of Application

On July 21, 2003, Edison filed this application along with a motion to file the un-redacted versions of the application, testimony, and workpapers under seal. This instant application concerns a discrete issue: should the Commission authorize Edison to purchase Mountainview. Simultaneously the Commission is processing a Rulemaking (R.) 01-10-024 to Establish Policies and Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Generation Procurement and Renewable Resource Development (Procurement) for all the California electric utilities. In that proceeding there is a protective order, an order that was crafted after much litigation and participation of the parties. In that Rulemaking, certain participants, designated as Market Participating Parties (MPP) are not granted access to the protected materials.

On August 1, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the Mountainview proceeding issued a ruling adopting the protective order from R.01-10-024 as the protective order for this Mountainview application proceeding.

On August 19, 2003, IEP filed a motion for an order compelling production of an unredacted copy of the application, testimony, and workpapers. The gravamen of the motion was that IEP was denied access to the documents filed under seal by Edison, and that denial disabled IEP from making a fully informed assessment of the application. Without access to the un-redacted documents IEP anticipated that it could not participate in a meaningful way in this proceeding.

Edison opposed the motion claiming that IEP was clearly a MPP, and since IEP was prohibited from reviewing the un-redacted documents in the procurement proceeding, and the confidentiality orders in that proceeding and the Mountainview were identical, IEP should be excluded from the confidential documents in this proceeding. In addition, Edison's Mountainview application included two categories of confidential data: (1) Edison's confidential information concerning its future resource needs; and (2) Sequoia's confidential cost data. There was concern on the part of Edison and Sequoia that the cost data should not be released under any circumstances as it was not germane to whether Mountainview should be authorized or not, and release of the data could compromise the competitive market. Opposition was also received from Sequoia and San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

The conundrum IEP's motion created was whether a modification of the protective order in the Mountainview proceeding would undermine the protective order in the procurement proceeding. Both proceedings involved the future resource needs of Edison, and the Mountainview project could have been included in the procurement proceeding, but for the truncated schedule dictated by the expiration date of February 29, 2004 for the option agreement. The Commission determined that Mountainview should not be consolidated into the procurement rulemaking so that Mountainview could proceed on its own schedule. Therefore, there was concern that if the confidentiality agreement was modified in this proceeding for a MPP, it could open the floodgates for other MPP in the procurement proceeding.

IEP was never given un-redacted copies of Edison's application, testimony, or work papers. However, IEP was a very involved and effective participant in the proceeding, asking probing questions on cross-examination, producing valuable testimony, and filing a post-hearing brief that was helpful to the Commission in drafting this decision. Despite the handicap of the protective order, IEP did effectively participate.

IEP's motion is denied.

B. Motion of The Utility Reform Network for Acceptance of Late-filed Notice of Intent to Claim Compensation

On October 10, 2003, TURN filed a motion for acceptance of a late-filed Notice of Intent (NOI) to claim compensation. No opposition being filed, and seeing no harm or prejudice to any party, TURN's motion for acceptance of late-filed NOI is granted.

C. Motion of the Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. and the Elsinor Valley Municipal Water District to Intervene as a Party and Submit Comments

On November 6, 2003, the Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. and the Elsinor Valley Municipal Water District (TNHC) filed a motion to intervene and to file comments. On November 14, 2003, Edison filed a response opposing the motion.

As of the date of this decision, the Commission is unsure whether the motion of TNHC was accepted for filing due to deficiencies in the document submitted to the Commission's docket office. However, to resolve the issue of whether TNHC may intervene as a party, with full rights of a party including the right to file an appeal, on the date the matter is submitted, we will address the motion as if it was accepted for filing.

The motion of TNHC is denied. As Edison said in its response, to begin with their proposed entry is "woefully late," coming after hearings are concluded, evidence is fully briefed, and the matter is submitted. TNHC presents no explanation for the late entry. Second, to accept TNHC's comments would require reopening the record and this case is on an expedited schedule that does not allow for reopening the record. And finally, Edison argues that TNHC is only advancing its own pecuniary interest by advertising its project.

Finding Edison's arguments against allowing TNHC entry to the proceeding compelling, motion is denied.