2. Procedural Background
Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E's) General Rate Case (GRC) Phase 1, filed as Application (A.) 09-12-020, addressed test year revenue requirement issues. The Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo dated May 26, 2010, specified that PG&E's 2011 GRC A.10-03-014, was to be conducted in two separate phases, (i.e., Phases 2 and 3, respectively). The GRC Phase 2, filed as A.10-03-014, addressed PG&E rate design and revenue allocation issues. Phase 3 was designated to consider PG&E's proposals relating to its revised customer energy statement (RCES), as well as issues relating to PG&E's Real-Time Pricing (RTP) and Peak-Time Rebate Proposals. By subsequent rulings, Phase 3 was limited only to consideration of RCES issues.2 In this decision, we resolve the Phase 3 issues of this proceeding.
On April 15, 2011, PG&E submitted updated testimony (Exhibit PG&E-17) removing RTP testimony and addressing only its RCES proposal, including associated costs. On June 22, 2011, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) submitted RCES reply testimony.3
On September 7, 2011, PG&E served notice, under Rule 12.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, of a settlement conference on RCES issues, which was held September 27, 2011. On October 31, 2011, the Settling Parties reached final agreement on an all-party settlement agreement on RCES issues. On November 10, 2011, PG&E filed a motion for approval of an all-party settlement on RCES issues which all active parties in Phase 3 signed. The Greenlining Institute (Greenlining) also signed the RCES settlement, but did not submit testimony. Accordingly, the signatories to the RCES settlement were PG&E, DRA, TURN, CforAT, and Greenlining.
PG&E filed a motion on November 15, 2011, requesting that all exhibits for Phase 3 of this proceeding, relating to the RCES issues, be marked for identification and admitted into evidence including PG&E testimony as well testimony sponsored by DRA, TURN, and CforAT.
By ruling issued on December 5, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) admitted into evidence all exhibits relating to RCES issues, as identified in PG&E's November 15, 2011 motion. The admission of the RCES exhibits was uncontested, and thus, no evidentiary hearings were required. Accordingly, this phase of the proceeding was submitted upon the admission of exhibits. This decision is based upon the submitted record.
2 An ALJ Ruling on March 3, 2011, revised the Phase 3 schedule and deferred PG&E's proposal for RTP pending further notice. On March 7, 2011, assigned Commissioner Peevey granted PG&E's motion to transfer RTP Information Technology cost back to A.10-02-028, the 2010 Rate Design Window (RDW) proceeding so that further consideration of these costs would occur in the 2010 RDW proceeding.
3 By ruling dated July 18, 2011 the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted the active parties' request to defer RCES rebuttal testimony to August 30, 2011, to allow time for settlement discussions. In a ruling issued on August 18, 2011, the ALJ granted the parties' request to further defer rebuttal testimony until September 30, 2011, to allow additional time for settlement discussions.
