4. Contributions to Resolution of Issues

A party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in various ways. For example, it may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision, or it may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the Commission adopted. A substantial contribution includes evidence or argument that supports part of the decision even if the Commission does not adopt a party's position in total.

In this proceeding, Aglet dealt with several technical issues related to revenue requirement, revenue allocation and rate structure.

The central point of Aglet's showing was that there was no justification for any surcharge in excess of rates needed to recover the DWR revenue requirement. Aglet opposed the reallocation of revenue requirements embedded in rates before issuance of D.01-09-059, and it opposed ORA's recommendation for a surcharge of 3 cents per kWh. Aglet's argument generally prevailed. The decision allows SDG&E to recover no more than the DWR revenue requirement. Because the Commission did not cite Aglet's work specifically, Aglet has reduced its compensation request by 20% of its time allocated to this issue.

Aglet recommended that DWR revenue requirements be allocated to customer classes based on equal cents per kWh, and that revenue shortfalls due to the statutory exemption of 130% of baseline usage be allocated to nonexempt usage based on equal cents per kWh. Federal Executive Agencies (FEA) opposed equal cents per kWh allocation, and both SDG&E and FEA opposed allocation of 130% of baseline shortfalls to nonresidential customers. Aglet prevailed on both of these issues. The Commission found that equal cents per kWh allocation is consistent with allocation of DWR revenue requirements ordered for Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company in D.01-05-064. ORA joined Weil in supporting allocation to all nonexempt sales, and the Commission decision agreed with that position.

Aglet recommended retaining the distinction between base rates and the DWR surcharge, establishing residential rate tiers based on the progression of baseline quantities that define the tiers, and rejecting commercial rate tiers. In D.01-09-059, the Commission retained a surcharge structure and rejected commercial rate tiers. On residential rate tiers, the Commission considered concerns raised by Aglet, and then exercised its judgment in setting tier differentials.

Aglet also addressed the issue of sales forecast precedents, but the Commission in its decision did not reach this issue. Aglet also opposed capping of rates for industrial customers but accepted capping of agricultural rates, a position generally adopted by the Commission. Aglet and other parties also recommended deferral of baseline issues to a generic proceeding, and the Commission in its decision did not consider increasing baseline allowances.

Aglet has demonstrated that it made a substantial contribution to the outcome in D.01-09-059. Moreover, Aglet's participation was productive in that the impact of its participation far exceeded its fees and other costs. For example, the amount of the 130% of baseline shortfall for SDG&E is roughly $53 million per year. Although some of the shortfall will stay within upper tiers of residential usage, the Commission's decision to allocate the shortfall to all nonexempt sales will save residential customers millions of dollars.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page