6. Discussion
6.1. Modification of the Dynamic Pricing Timetable
There is no disagreement with the fact that, in D.08-07-045, the Commission provided a timetable specifying effective dates for implementing dynamic pricing for each customer class. For the small and medium C&I class, the effective date for implementing default CPP/PDP rates is shown to be on, or before, February 1, 2011. Also, there is no disagreement with the fact that, in D.08-07-045, there are provisions for the adoption of a timetable that is different than that provided in the decision.
D.08-07-045 states that the Commission could decide to adopt different rates or a different timetable based on the information presented to the Commission at the time and in the proceedings in which the Commission considers PG&E's specific rate proposals. PG&E is proposing specific CPP/PDP rates, and the Commission will be considering those rates, in A.09-02-022. Therefore, the Petitioners' request to change the dynamic pricing timetable could certainly be done in A.09-02-022. Moreover, it is preferable to do so rather than to address the request through a decision on the Petition.
Addressing substantive issues raised by the Petition and responses at this time would necessitate the use of potentially incomplete information that is not tested by cross-examination. On the other hand, addressing proposed timetable changes in A.09-02-022 will allow parties to raise related issues in direct testimony, parties to respond in rebuttal testimony, and parties to test the evidence through cross examination in evidentiary hearings.
Also, the scope of issues to be considered in A.09-02-022 already includes proposals to change the effective date for default PDP rates for small and medium customers.8 Issues related to dynamic pricing timetable changes should continue to be addressed in A.09-02-022, where applicable. In this respect, the Scoping Memo for A.09-02-022 does not need to be adjusted.9
Therefore, the Petitioners' request to change the effective date for default PDP rates for small and medium C&I customers will be denied without prejudice to the determination of such appropriate date in A.09-02-022.
6.2. Bifurcation of A.09-02-022
As TURN suggests and PG&E asserts, the appropriate means for determining whether or not A.09-02-022 should be bifurcated is through the Scoping Memo in A.09-02-022. Also, DRA requested that A.09-02-022 be bifurcated as part of its protest to that application.
Due to the time requirements for issuing a Commission decision on a petition for modification and the need to proceed expeditiously in A.09-02-022, the Scoping Memo in A.09-02-022 was issued on May 5, 2009, prior to this decision on the Petition. We note that DRA's request to bifurcate the proceeding was not adopted in that Scoping Memo. As the assigned Commissioner stated, the adopted schedule in that proceeding is intended to resolve all issues by the beginning of 2010 so that dynamic pricing can be implemented as envisioned in D.08-07-045.10 We see no reason to change that determination.
Petitioners' request to bifurcate A.09-02-022 is moot and will be denied.
With respect to TURN's concern regarding whether it would be pointless to review costs that have already been spent, all costs are subject to a finding of reasonableness before rate recovery is authorized. This applies to costs that are requested on a recorded basis as well as costs requested on an estimated basis.
8 See Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo for A.09-02-022, dated May 5, 2009, p. 8.
9 The Scoping Memo indicated that whether the scope of issues in A.09-02-022 needed to be adjusted at a later date with respect to this issue would be determined by the manner in which the Commission resolved the Petition.
10 Scoping Memo for A.09-02-022, p. 10.
