II. Procedural Background
On September 13, 2005, the Commission issued a notice of a Full-Panel Hearing to be held in Los Angeles on October 6, 2005, and directed several utilities1 to provide written proposals for reducing the impact of anticipate gas bill increases on low-income customers. On September 28, 2005 or soon thereafter, the utilities and several other parties filed proposals. At the Full-Panel hearings, participants discussed many potential actions. Several utilities expressed an interest in filing formal proposals. In an electronic ruling issued the next day (October 7, 2005), administrative law judge (ALJ) Steven Weissman set the following schedule:
October 11, 2005: Last day to submit proposals for adoption on
October 27th
October 17, 2005: Due date for comments on the proposals
October 19, 2005: Due date for replies to comments
October 20, 2005: Workshop on Utility Proposals
On October 11, 2005, the utilities and other parties filed the following:
1. SCE's Supplement to its Application (A.) 05-06-009 Requesting Approval of Low-Income Assistance Programs and Budgets for Program Years 2006 and 2007 and its Motion to Take Actions to Mitigate Bill Impacts on Low-Income Customers During the 2005 Winter Period.
2. Proposal of the Association of California Community and Energy Services (ACCES) to Reduce Bill Impacts on Low-Income Households Due to High Natural Gas Prices This Winter.
3. Disability Rights Advocates' Proposal for Changes to the Medical Baseline Allowance.
4. Comments of the Latino Issues Forum on En Banc Hearing and Proposal Regarding Reducing Bill Impacts on Low-Income Households Due to High Natural Gas Prices This Winter.
5. PG&E Advice Letters 2664-G-A/2720-E-A and 2666-G/2721-E.2
6. The Petition of SDG&E and SoCalGas to Implement Changes to Low-Income Energy Efficiency and California Alternative Rate for Energy Programs for Winter 2005-2006.
SoCalGas also separately filed an application in which the utility proposes to withdraw cushion gas in order to provide low-cost supplies for CARE customers in the coming winter. We are considering this proposal in a separate proceeding and a separate order.
On October 14, 2005, through a further electronic ruling, the ALJ directed the utilities to prepare additional exhibits, including a detailed comparison of the proposals of various parties. The utilities jointly filed this information on October 18 and 19, 2005. Many parties also filed comments and replies as prescribed in the ALJ's October 7, 2005 ruling. All or nearly all of the active participants also attended the October 20, 2005 workshop at which most of the proposals were discussed in greater detail.
1 The specified utilities are Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and Southwest Gas Company (Southwest).
2 The Advice Letters submitted by PG&E are more appropriately considered as petitions to modify prior decisions. Because of the compressed schedule related to the review of these proposals, we are not requiring the utility to re-file these requests. Rather, we note that they were served on the parties to the proceedings where the modifications would occur, and we treat them as if they were petitions for modification.
