7. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision (PD) of the administrative law judge (ALJ) in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by Petitioners on June 23, 2009. No reply comments were filed.
Petitioners commented on the PD's denial of the bifurcation request as well as the request to extend the default CPP timetable for small and medium commercial customers.
7.1. Bifurcation
Petitioners state that the PD's denial of the bifurcation request is not supported by any findings or evidence, and by failing to address the issues raised in the Petition, the PD effectively denies small and medium commercial customers due process. Petitioners assert that for the Commission to adopt the PD as its final decision in this case would be legal error. We disagree.
The PD's denial of the bifurcation request is based on the fact that the appropriate forum for addressing whether A.09-02-022 should be bifurcated is in A.09-02-002 where the schedule for that proceeding is established. There is nothing to modify in D.08-07-045, with respect to bifurcation of A.09-02-022, because the procedural schedules for the applications that would implement dynamic pricing for specific customer groups are not addressed in D.08-07-045. We also note that Petitioners did not provide proposed wording to carry out any proposed modification to D.08-07-045, with respect to the bifurcation of A.09-02-022.11
With respect to due process, there may be merit to those issues which would support delaying implementation of default CPP rates for small and medium customers. However, as the PD indicates the timetable for such implementation is being addressed in A.09-02-022, and the merits of those issues raised in the Petition can be evaluated along with other issues and concerns raised during the course of that proceeding. Issues and concerns regarding the need for bifurcation of A.09-02-022 should have been brought up in A.09-02-022 where the procedural schedule, including potential bifurcation, was properly considered.12
7.2. Timetable
Petitioners state that denying the modification of the dynamic pricing timetable for small and medium commercial customers on the basis that the information supporting the request is "Potentially Incomplete"13 is factual error. Petitioners also assert that the Commission does not need cross examination to conclude that a flawed rate design for small and medium commercial customers will harm them, nor does the Commission need cross examination to conclude that an effective customer outreach program is needed to communicate the new rate design to small and medium commercial customers. These arguments are not persuasive.
The primary reason for deferring this issue to A.09-02-022 is not that there are concerns with evidence presented in the Petition, but that the appropriate means for establishing the effective date for default CPP rates for small and medium commercial customers is through A.09-02-022. This is entirely consistent with D.08-07-045 which states that, in the proceedings in which the Commission considers PG&E's specific rate proposal, in this case A.09-02-022, the Commission could decide to adopt different rates or a different timetable based on the information presented to the Commission at that time.14 In this way, concerns brought up in the Petition, as well as concerns that may be brought up in direct testimony and evidence developed over the course of that proceeding, will be available for the Commission's consideration. Also, the Commission can determine whether or not the proposed rate design is flawed or whether or not an effective customer outreach program will be available to the affected customers and can respond accordingly.
11 Rule 16.4(b) states, in part, that a petition for modification of a Commission decision must concisely state the justification for the requested relief and must propose specific wording to carry out all requested modifications to the decision.
12 In its protest to A.09-02-022, DRA raised the same concerns expressed in the Petition and proposed the proceeding be bifurcated. The schedule was also discussed extensively at the PHC and addressed in the Scoping Memo.
13 See Finding of Fact 4.
14 See D.09-07-045, pp. 8-9.
