XIII. Assignment of Proceeding
Geoffrey F. Brown is the assigned Commissioner and Jeffrey P. O'Donnell is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. SDG&E's participation in the SGRP is reasonable.
2. The environmental impacts of the SGRP were addressed in D.05-12-040.
3. This application does not involve any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.
4. The settlement is a reasonable compromise between SDG&E, SCE and DRA, and nothing in the record indicates that it should not be adopted.
5. Our cost-effectiveness evaluation, including our review of the calculation methodology and individual inputs to the calculation, supports the reasonableness of the settlement.
6. Nothing in the settlement contravenes any statute or Commission decision.
7. The settlement helps ensure that SDG&E will be able to provide adequate reliable power to its customers at a reasonable cost.
8. No party opposes the settlement.
9. Since DRA represents the interests of ratepayers and SDG&E and SCE represent their interests, the affected parties are fairly represented.
10. The settlement provides sufficient information to enable the Commission to implement it and understand the consequences of implementation, thus enabling the Commission to discharge its future regulatory obligations with respect to the parties and their interests.
11. The settlement includes a two-way balancing account for SONGS O&M through December 31, 2011, which provides for full recovery of billed costs in excess of the authorized amount.
12. The settlement is intended to be consistent with D.05-12-040.
13. The possibility of a reasonableness review or SGRP cancellation is not specifically addressed in the settlement.
14. Although SCE is the operating agent for SONGS, SDG&E is responsible for the reasonableness of its share of the SGRP costs.
15. The SGRP is not separable into a portion performed by SCE, and a portion performed by SDG&E.
16. SDG&E participates in the decision-making process for SONGS costs, and has some ability to influence those decisions.
17. 100% balancing account recovery of SONGS O&M costs effectively insulates SDG&E from being affected by decisions regarding them, thus raising the question of whether SDG&E would have an incentive to minimize them.
18. The unredacted version of Exhibit SDG&E-5 contains SDG&E's energy portfolio forecast for 2006-2016. The release of this forecast could put SDG&E at a competitive disadvantage regarding future energy transactions and lead to higher energy costs to ratepayers.
19. The motion for a protective order is moot because it would not apply to DRA, SCE has not indicated a need for access to the information that would be the subject of the protective order, and Riverside is not an active party.
20. At the June 8, 2006 prehearing conference the ALJ denied SDG&E's motion for a protective order.
1. This application is not a project under CEQA.
2. The settlement should be approved because it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law and in the public interest.
3. This decision should be effective immediately so that the ratemaking treatment authorized herein can be implemented as soon as possible.
4. If the SGRP is cancelled for any reason at any time, and SDG&E requests recovery of any of the incurred costs from ratepayers, the Commission should retain the discretion to conduct a reasonableness review of the costs incurred, including cancellation costs, and to determine the appropriate ratemaking treatment, if any.
5. If a reasonableness review of SGRP costs is performed pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 5 of D.05-12-040, SDG&E should be subject to that reasonableness review. Such review should be conducted in connection with SCE's application to include SGRP costs permanently in rates. SDG&E should file its application to include SGRP costs permanently in rates jointly with SCE, separately subject to the reasonableness determination adopted in SCE's application, or in some other manner that would avoid a separate reasonableness review for SDG&E.
6. If SDG&E subsequently applies for continuation of the two-way balancing account for SONGS O&M costs authorized herein, it should be required to include in its filing an exhibit that addresses whether 100% recovery provides it with any incentive to minimize such costs.
7. DG&E's motion to keep the unredacted version of Exhibit SDG&E-5 under seal should be granted.
8. he ALJ's June 8, 2006 ruling denying the motion for a protective order should be affirmed.
9. his decision should be effective immediately so that SDG&E can implement the ratemaking treatment authorized herein without delay.
10. earings are not necessary.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The settlement filed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates, included as Attachment A to this decision, is approved subject to the following conditions.
2. If the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 & 3 (SONGS) Steam Generator Replacement Program (SGRP) is cancelled for any reason at any time, and SDG&E requests recovery of any of the incurred costs from ratepayers, the Commission retains the discretion to conduct a reasonableness review of the costs incurred, including cancellation costs, and to determine the appropriate ratemaking treatment, if any.
3. If a reasonableness review of SGRP costs is performed pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 5 of Decision (D.) 05-12-040, SDG&E shall be subject to that reasonableness review. Such review shall be conducted in connection with SCE's application to include SGRP costs permanently in rates. SDG&E shall file its application to include SGRP costs permanently in rates jointly with SCE, separately subject to the reasonableness determination adopted in SCE's application, or in some other manner that would avoid a separate reasonableness review for SDG&E.
4. If SDG&E subsequently applies for continuation of the two-way balancing account for SONGS operations and maintenance costs authorized herein, it shall include in its filing an exhibit that addresses whether 100% recovery provides it with any incentive to minimize such costs.
5. SDG&E's motion, filed concurrently with this application, to keep the unredacted version of Exhibit SDG&E-5 (Identified in the record as Exhibit SDG&E-5C) under seal is granted for a period of four years from the effective date of this decision.
6. If SDG&E believes that further protection of the information kept under seal is needed, it may file a motion stating the justification for further withholding of the information from public inspection, or for such other relief as the Commission's rules may then provide. This motion shall be filed no later than 30 days before the expiration date.
7. The assigned Administrative Law Judge's June 8, 2006 ruling denying the motion for a protective order is affirmed.
8. Hearings are not necessary in this proceeding.
9. Application 06-04-018 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated November 30, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
Commissioners
