ALJ/BMD/k47 Mailed 11/30/2001

Decision 01-11-047 November 29, 2001

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 3338-E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs.	Application 00-11-038 (Filed November 16, 2000)
Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E)	Application 00-11-056 (Filed November 22, 2000)
Petition of The Utility Reform Network for Modification of Resolution E-3527.	Application 00-10-028 (Filed October 17, 200)

OPINION ON REQUEST FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION

This decision awards Aglet Consumers Alliance (Aglet) $100,147.63 in compensation for its contribution to Decisions (D.) 01-03-081, D.01-03-082, D.01-04-005, and D.01-05-064.

1. Background

Aglet's compensation request is large, but it covers contributions to many decisions at the heart of the current energy crisis. In these decisions, adopted during different phases of the proceeding, the Commission addressed the requests of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company (Edison) for immediate rate increases in response to extraordinary circumstances in California's wholesale power markets. The first phase concluded with an increase in rates for PG&E and Edison customers of one-cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in D.01-01-018. Prior to D.01-01-018, the Commission issued D.00-12-067 which consolidated the above-captioned applications and a petition (docketed as A.00-10-028) filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN) as one proceeding with different phases.

D.01-03-082, issued in the second phase, is an interim opinion granting PG&E and Edison authority to increase rates by an additional three-cents per kWh over those rates adopted in D.01-01-018. In this second phase five issues were considered:

a. Review of the independent audits of PG&E and Edison, and determination of whether or not the Commission should grant further rate increases.

b. TURN's accounting proposal to reconcile various balancing and memorandum accounts.

c. Consideration of whether the rate freeze under Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 has ended on a prospective basis.

d. Greenlining/Latino Issues Forum's California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) proposal.

e. Parties' proposals for tiered residential rates.

D.01-03-082 concludes that the utilities are experiencing serious financial shortfalls in revenues necessary to provide adequate electric service to their customers. D.01-03-082 also adopted changes in accounting rules proposed by TURN; the rules recognize amounts utilities realized both on their sales of capital assets and in revenues from selling electricity generated by their own plants. D.01-03-082 exempted low-income customers from the rate increase while stating that the rate freeze under AB 1890 has not ended. Finally, D.01-03-082 provided opportunity for parties to comment on a concurrent Assigned Commissioner Ruling regarding tiered residential rates.

D.01-03-081 and D.01-04-005 are part of the third phase. They address the issues of implementing AB 1X, signed into law February 1, 2001, and codified in § 360.5.¹ AB 1X authorizes the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to purchase electric power for sale directly to retail end-use customers served by utilities. AB 1X contains mechanisms to pay for this power, and establishes the California Procurement Adjustment (CPA) which sets the amount of the utility retail rate to be transferred to DWR to pay for power purchases. D.01-03-081 requires utilities to provide DWR with monies collected for power paid for by DWR, sets out the proposed method to calculate the CPA, calculates for each utility a proposed CPA rate, and otherwise implements § 360.5. D.01-04-005 applies the CPA rate to determine CPA revenue used by the DWR in the process of issuing bonds and addresses comments of parties on the CPA methodology proposed in D.01-03-081.

In the fourth phase, D.01-05-064 allocated the three-cents per kWh authorized in D.01-03-082 to customer classes. The Commission adopted five tiers for residential usage, excluding CARE and medical baseline customers. All shortfalls in revenue were allocated to non-exempt sales for residential usage above 130% of baseline amounts, and to commercial and industrial customers. Agricultural customers were limited to increases of 15 to 20% depending on their tariff schedule.

Aglet timely filed its compensation request on May 29, 2001. In addition to compensation for the professional hours spent on the proceeding, and other related costs, Aglet has requested the Commission to approve a "risk premium" and require any utility payments to Aglet be within five days of the effective date of the Commission's order. Aglet argues that the risk premium, an increase of $30 per hour in the rate of its Director, James Weil, is necessary to reflect the uncertainty of receiving any compensation award given the current financial conditions of Edison and PG&E. The request for a five-day payment period also is intended to minimize the uncertainty of receiving any compensation adopted in this order.

On June 29, 2001, Edison filed opposition to Aglet's request. Edison states that Aglet made no substantial non-duplicative contribution to the proceeding, and that Aglet has not justified any risk premium. Edison believes that Aglet's positions were sufficiently covered by other parties, particularly The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and that Aglet's arguments were rejected by the Commission. Edison also argues that Aglet's request for a risk premium and payment acceleration has neither precedent nor justification. Edison recommends that the Commission deny Aglet any compensation, or alternatively limit the compensation to those matters where Aglet made a "unique contribution," and reject any a risk premium or acceleration in payment.

In reply, Aglet states that Edison is incorrect in its application of the "substantial contribution" standard set by § 1802(h), and that a "unique contribution" is not required. The statutory standard is that a customer's presentation "has substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision." Aglet believes its work has not been duplicative but contributed through coordination and cooperation with other parties. Furthermore, Aglet argues that Edison has not explained when an issue has been sufficiently covered by another party. Finally, Aglet believes that there is no need for a precedent regarding payment of a risk premium or an accelerated payment. As a result of the additional work entailed in filing this reply, Aglet increased its compensation request by $1,072.23.

Edison filed a motion for leave to file late its opposition to Aglet's request for compensation. In the motion, Edison explains that it should have filed its opposition on June 28, 2001, instead of June 29, 2001, which would be 30 days after the filing of Aglet's request for compensation. Edison's motion states it miscalculated the days for filing its pleading. Aglet argues that § 1804(c) does not permit any extension of time requirements and therefore Edison's motion cannot be granted. Given the minimum delay (one day), and that there is no harm to the parties, we will grant Edison's motion to file its opposition late, although we remind all parties to adhere to the filing requirements in § 1804.