IV. Procedural Summary

Proceedings to determine DA CRS were initiated by an ALJ ruling issued December 17, 2001 in A.98-07-003. By joint ruling on December 24, 2001, the issue of DA cost responsibility was transferred from A.98-07-003 to A.00-11-038 et al. By ALJ ruling issued March 29, 2002 in A.00-11-038 et al., a schedule was adopted for evidentiary hearings on DA cost responsibility. On April 22, 2002, the Commission issued D.02-04-052, transferring the proceedings on DA and DL cost responsibility from A.00-11-038 et al. to R.02-01-011.

Parties filed opening briefs on April 22, 2002, and, reply briefs on May 6, 2002 on legal issues relating to the Commission's right to impose cost responsibility charges on DA and DL customers. Opening testimony was mailed on June 6, 2002 and reply testimony was mailed on June 20, 2002. Evidentiary hearings were held from July 11 through July 24, 2000, regarding the appropriate charges to be assessed on DA customers to avoid cost shifting. By ALJ bench ruling on the first day of hearings, the scope of the evidentiary hearings was bifurcated to provide for separate consideration of departing load-as opposed to DA-cost responsibility issues. Post-hearing opening briefs were filed on August 30, 2002, and reply briefs were filed on September 6, 2002.

Active parties respresented a range of interests including the investor-owned utilities (IOUs), parties representing bundled customers (i.e., Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and California Energy Commission (CEC), and parties representing DA customers, either through industry associations or as individual customers. DWR also participated by sponsoring computer modeling scenarios. The most active parties representing DA interests that sponsored testimony included the California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), California Industrial Users (CIU), and California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA). Several other DA parties presented testimony or filed briefs.⁷