7. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Sullivan 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 on the proposed decision were filed on October 10, 2011, by SCE and DRA. Reply comments were filed on October 17, 2011, by SCE and DRA.

7.1. Comments of Parties and Discussion

SCE, in its Reply Comments on the Proposed Decision, argued that the Commission should adopt the proposed decision without substantial modification. SCE's Opening Comments on the Proposed Decision recommended minor technical corrections to the proposed decision and argued that the Commission should reject DRA's Motion To File Confidential Attachment of its Reply Brief Under Seal.

As noted above, DRA's withdrawal of its motion rendered the issue concerning confidential treatment of this data moot. More broadly, as discussed above, forecast information concerning the amount of incentive payments that SCE will provide to its customers in the summer discount plan remains under seal as confidential, although similar information on incentive payments paid in prior years has been subject to disclosure by SCE. Despite the confidential nature of the exact level of incentive payments, it does not broach any confidence to note that the incentive payments far exceed the operating costs of the SDP.

In its Comments on the Proposed Decision, DRA argued that SCE's incremental funding to the SDP may lead to stranded costs. DRA argued that "[i]f in the future, the Commission orders SCE to leverage its SmartConnect and HAN-enabled [Home Area Network] PCT [Programmable Communicating Thermostat] technology, all of the new AC switches with the over-ride feature SCE will install in 2011 and 2012 will have to be discarded, thereby adding further to the stranded costs ratepayers are facing in this application."⁹⁴

SCE replied to this argument by stating that its "override-enabled switches will work with HAN-Enabled Technology in a unified SDP Program."⁹⁵

This decision notes that this is an issue that the Commission can address in the future and there is no reason to reject this available technology at this time for one that might be available in the future. In particular, the record in this proceeding makes clear that the incremental costs of these switches and modifications to the SDP generate benefits that justify the costs.

DRA also argued that the proposed decision "does not address the possible consequences of providing the override option to all SDP participants."⁹⁶ This argument, however, fails to recognize that this decision has addressed this issue extensively in Section 5.2 above. Moreover, the decision also notes that because SCE must file updated information based on its implementation of this program, the Commission may modify the program and incentives to ensure that the benefits exceed the costs.

Finally, DRA proposed additional language modifying ordering paragraph 4 to both require a full new application and ensure that SCE provides the information that DRA believes essential to the 2012 update application. Specifically, DRA asked for the following language:

The Southern California Edison Company shall file an updated Summer Discount Plan Application in the fourth quarter of 2012 using information obtained from the operation of the revised Summer Discount Plan. Such information shall include, but not be limited to, the number of eligible SDP customers who have chosen the override option and an analysis of their behavior during each event called during 2011-2012. Additionally, the updated application should explicitly require that SCE take into account the effect of SDP's override option on its ex-ante load impact estimate for 2013-2014 for evaluating SDP's cost effectiveness.⁹⁷

In reply, SCE argued that:

It simply makes more sense to update the SDP analysis that SCE provided in the DR Application as that would provide a more informative picture for the Commission. SCE would update the SDP load impacts for both legacy and new customers, updated for switch selection results projected forward for new customers, and estimates of override frequency. SCE would also be able to employ the new DR cost-effectiveness protocols and DR Reporting Template required the for the DRA application.⁹⁸

Finally, SCE argued that DRA's other proposed changes to Ordering Paragraph 4 "are unnecessary and restrictive."

This decision finds that it is appropriate for SCE to file the updated information in the DR Application, not a new application or in this application. That is the most appropriate forum for assessing the new information and making whatever modifications are needed.

The decision, however, finds DRA's recommended language to shape SCE's update filing is helpful and shows forethought on DRA's part. Moreover, DRA had made it clear that concerning its requested information, SCE's filing shall "include, but not be limited to" the requested information. Thus, DRA's requirement is not limiting the information that SCE can submit. For these reasons, this decision modifies Ordering Paragraph 4 to reflect the language recommended by DRA.