2. Background

On March 15, 2005, PG&E filed the instant application, seeking authorization to spend up to $49 million over six months for pre-deployment costs for its proposed AMI Project. The application also requested approval of specific ratemaking and cost recovery treatment for its pre-deployment expenditures.

On May 18, 2005, Assigned Commissioner Peevey issued a ruling laying out his approach to the case. The ruling required PG&E to file supplemental testimony on minimum functionality issues on May 31, 2005. Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), the County of Yolo and the Cities of Davis, West Sacramento and Woodland (jointly, Yolo County Parties), Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), and Hunt Technologies, Inc. served testimony on June 13, 2005. PG&E and SVLG served rebuttal testimony on June 17, 2005.

A prehearing conference was held on June 23, 2005. Two days of evidentiary hearings were held on June 27 and 28, 2005. Opening Briefs were filed by PG&E, TURN, ORA, Yolo County Parties, and South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). Reply Briefs were filed by PG&E, TURN, ORA, and SSJID.