II. Background
Application (A.) 00-10-045 was filed by SDG&E to seek approval of various proposals to implement Assembly Bill (AB) 265 (Stats. 2000, Ch. 328). AB 265 was part of the legislative effort during the height of the energy crisis to stabilize electricity rates. SDG&E filed A.01-01-044 seeking authority to assess a surcharge on electric bills of residential, small commercial, and street lighting customers. This surcharge was intended to amortize the balancing account undercollection resulting from high wholesale electric prices and the establishment of the 6.5 cent rate ceiling in AB 265. The two proceedings were consolidated, and became the procedural vehicle for resolving several issues affecting SDG&E's electric rates.
Following the adoption of D.02-12-064, UCAN, Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed a joint request for compensation on February 27, 2003.2 In D.03-05-013, we awarded UCAN $36,063.30 for its substantial contribution to D.02-12-064.
On January 29, 2003, UCAN, the City of San Diego, and the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) applied for rehearing of D.02-12-064. We denied rehearing in D.03-08-072. UCAN sought judicial review of D.03-08-072 and D.02-12-064 by petitioning the Court of Appeal for a writ of review. The petition was granted and oral argument was held. In UCAN v. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 644,3 the Court of Appeal concluded that the Commission "properly accepted SDG&E's settlement offer and did not act contrary to section 332.1 or violate the state Constitution," and affirmed D.02-12-064 and D.03-08-072. (120 Cal.App.4th at 648-649.) UCAN filed a subsequent petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied on November 10, 2004. 4
On January 7, 2005, UCAN filed the subject request for compensation in connection with the rehearing of D.02-12-064 and appeal of D.03-08-072.
SDG&E filed an opposition to UCAN's request for compensation on February 7, 2005. UCAN filed a response on February 23, 2005. Both filings are further discussed herein.
2 UCAN, Aglet, and TURN filed an earlier request for compensation in the above-captioned proceedings on March 25, 2002. A significant portion of that request sought compensation for their work related to the Commission's earlier rejection of SDG&E's proposed settlement of claims in the Court of Appeal regarding the intermediate term power purchase contracts. In D.02-10-051, the Commission denied, without prejudice, the compensation that UCAN and Aglet were seeking as premature. (See D.02-10-051, pp. 6, 15; D.03-05-013, pp. 10-14.) In D.03-05-013, which addressed the February 27, 2003 request for compensation, the Commission recognized the request "represents, in effect, the amount of the First Compensation Request that was denied without prejudice (i.e., deferred) by D.02-10-051, plus certain adjustments." (D.03-05-013, p. 11.) 3 Cited herein as UCAN v. PUC. 4 UCAN is not seeking compensation for its work related to the appeal to the Supreme Court.
