17. Comments on the Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the alternate proposed decision of the Assigned Commissioner in this matter was mailed to the parties simultaneously in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Timely comments were filed by CUE, ORA, SCGC, TURN, SoCalGas and SDG&E on March 7, 2005 and by Aglet on March 4, 2005. Reply comments wer filed by ORA, TURN, SoCalGas and SDG&E on March 14, 2005. As parties to the proposed settlements on post-test year ratemaking, they reiterated their support for the settlement without modifications. Parties oppose any revision of the all party settlement and argue that any tinkering of the settlement would undo the delicate balance of the agreement. We understand the give-and-take in settlement discussions, but we also must consider our role in reviewing these settlements and our determination on whether these settlements are reasonable. As discussed in this decision, if the base year is not adjusted to the actual indices' values, both the ratepayers and the utilities would be subjected to a compounding of any forecast error for the base year. However, as noted in SoCalGas' and SDG&E's comments, given the negotiated provision of a floor and a ceiling in the settlement, the decision has been clarified to limit the true up within the bounds of the floor and the ceiling as adopted in the settlement.
Other arguments offered by parties also address the reasonableness of the sharing and incentive mechanisms. We have considered all of the comments and, where appropriate, the decision has been changed to reflect those comments. The SAIDI base target has been corrected to reflect the weather effects on a five-year and ten-year average as indicated in comments by both CUE and the applicants. ORA and TURN argue for the continuation of SDG&E's service guarantee program and propose a similar service guarantee be added for SoCalGas. We find their arguments reasonable and adopt ORA's proposal for a service guarantee program for both SDG&E and SoCalGas.
The decision has been clarified to indicate that the post-test year escalation factors for SONGS costs billed to SDG&E by Edison are to be consistent with the escalation rates adopted for Edison in D.04-07-022, and as may be authorized for subsequent years, in Edison's current A.04-12-014, for test year 2006.95
The decision has been clarified to indicate that the base margin per customer is subject to balancing account treatment consistent with § 739.10 for SDG&E's electric operations and as proposed for SoCalGas and SDG&E's gas operations.96
95 Sempra comments, p. 19.
96 Sempra comments, pp. 14-15.
