Background
On December 23, 2005, SCE filed the Application and testimony for approval of the KRCC Contract.5 On January 23, 2006, DRA protested the Application; on January 27, 2006, Aglet protested the Application and on January 30, 2006, TURN filed a response in support of the Application. On February 9, 2006, SCE filed a reply to DRA's and Aglet's protests.
ALJ Bruce DeBerry conducted a prehearing conference (PHC) on March 10, 2006, proposed an expedited schedule for the proceeding, and requested that parties participate in mediation. During the PHC, DRA and Aglet indicated continued objection to approval of the KRCC contract, and CCC raised concerns regarding the availability of similar contracts to other similarly situated QFs.
On March 22, 2006, Assigned Commissioner Geoffrey F. Brown issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling (Scoping Memo) which confirmed the categorization and need for hearing, defined the issues, and established an expedited schedule.
On March 29, 2006, DRA, Aglet and CCC served testimony. Aglet continued its objection to the KRCC Contract approval; DRA stated its support for the KRCC Contract, but stated objections regarding the contract negotiation process; CCC stated that although it did not take a position on approval of the KRCC Contract, CCC would address whether the KRCC Contract represented favorable treatment for a SCE QF affiliate, and on what basis SCE will make KRCC contract provisions and terms available to other QFs.6
On March 30, 2006, the Settling Parties attended mediation assisted by ALJ Peter Allen in an effort to settle their disputes, avoid evidentiary hearings, and reduce the expense of litigation. On April 3, 2006, SCE served its rebuttal testimony, and on April 4, 2006, DRA served its amended testimony.
On April 5, 2006, the Settling Parties reached an agreement settling all disputes related to this proceeding and the Application. Also, on April 5, 2006, an evidentiary hearing was held to receive the Settlement Agreement and respond to questions from the assigned ALJ regarding various provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Additional questions from the assigned ALJ were asked in a series of e-mail communications, which were made part of the record in this proceeding by an ALJ Ruling on April 26, 2006.
Following the April 5, 2006 hearing, SCE and Settling Parties filed a Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement (Joint Motion).7 The Joint Motion provides background for the Application, explains the terms of the Settlement Agreement and implementation, requests an expedited schedule, and explains how the Settlement Agreement meets Commission criteria for an All-Party settlement and satisfies Rule 51.1(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), as further discussed below.
5 KRCC, is owned 50% by an SCE affiliate and is a qualifying facility (QF) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Currently, KRCC delivers power to SCE under a RSO-1 contract pursuant to Decision (D.) 04-01-050.
6 See, Scoping Memo, p. 3, sub-issues D. and E.
7 The Joint Motion is unopposed and is granted.
