3. Procedural Background
A prehearing conference was held on February 19, 2010, and the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo was issued on March 5, 2010. On July 29, 2010, Investigation (I.) 10-07-027 was instituted to allow the Commission to hear proposals other than those of PG&E and to enable the Commission to enter orders on matters not proposed by PG&E. A.09-12-020 and I.10-07-027 were consolidated for these purposes.
During May and June 2010, joint public participation hearings for this proceeding and A.09-09-0131 were held in San Francisco, Fresno, Bakersfield, Ukiah, Santa Rosa, Oakland, Woodland, Red Bluff, San Jose, Salinas, and
San Luis Obispo. In total, there were approximately 450 speakers who addressed a variety of issues ranging from impacts of rate increases on the various customer classes, suggestions for reducing PG&E's costs, renewable energy, State Proposition 16, energy assistance programs, PG&E's SmartMeter program, undergrounding of utilities, PG&E's practice of contracting out engineering and design work, rate design, and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Evidentiary hearings were held from June 21 through July 16 and on
July 22, 2010. The Joint Comparison Exhibit was served on July 30, 2010.2 Opening Briefs were scheduled to be filed on August 26, 2010 and reply briefs on September 20, 2010. However, on August 4, 2010, PG&E, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet) informed the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the parties were currently engaged in settlement negotiations. In order to permit further discussions, the ALJ granted those parties' request to extend the filing dates for opening and closing briefs. Shortly thereafter, other parties to the proceeding were invited to participate in the settlement discussions, if interested.
On September 24, 2010, it was reported to the ALJ that significant progress among a number of parties had been made. The parties requested that the procedural schedule be suspended pending the submission of the next status report. That request was also granted.
On October 15, 2010, a settlement conference was held. Later that day, after the conference was concluded, a motion to adopt a test year 2011 GRC settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) that resolved all but one issue in this proceeding was filed by PG&E on behalf of itself and 16 other parties (collectively, the Settling Parties). Opening briefs on the one remaining issue were filed on October 29, 2010, and reply briefs were filed on November 15, 2010.3 Comments on the Settlement Agreement were also due on November 15, 2010. However, none were filed. This proceeding was submitted for decision on November 17, 2010, after the assigned ALJ determined that evidentiary hearing on the Settlement Agreement was not necessary.
1 By A.09-09-013, PG&E requested to increase the authorized revenue requirement for its natural gas transmission and storage services.
2 The Joint Comparison Exhibit is identified as Exhibit PG&E-69 and is received in evidence.
3 PG&E, DRA, TURN, Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed opening and reply briefs. Aglet filed a reply brief only.
