2. Procedural Background

The Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) ((Joint Applicants) and (Joint Utilities)) filed their application on November 29, 2011, and concurrently served the application on the Commission's Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Protests to the application were originally due on January 3, 2012. Via electronic mail, the assigned ALJ Thomas R. Pulsifer granted an extension for filing of protests to January 24, 2012. The only protest filed was that of the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA). DRA did not request hearings or the opportunity to submit testimony, but sought more time to complete the review of the application to ensure that granting the proposed exemptions would constitute sound policy and be in ratepayers' interests.

The Joint Applicants filed a response to DRA on February 3, 2012. On February 17, 2012, the Joint Utilities filed an amended application, revising their proposed template for use in reporting cost savings to the Commission and incorporated DRA's input. The Joint Utilities represented that DRA had reviewed the revised reporting template and had determined that it satisfied DRA's concerns. DRA informally confirmed with the ALJ that DRA does not plan to provide further comments on the application.

Due to the large range of issues contained within the application, DRA believes that potential interested parties in the results of this proceeding may include electric generation market participants, as well as anyone who may be concerned about any potential antitrust issues, including participants of the nuclear, electric procurement, and General Rate Cases (GRC) of each of the Joint Utilities. In its protest, DRA identified no specific market power, antitrust, or anti-competitive concerns or objections to the application. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, DRA argues that the Commission should ensure that non-utility market participants have an opportunity to comment on the request for an exemption from the Commission's Affiliate Transaction Rules (ATR). DRA believes that it is important for market participants to be fully informed of the instant proceeding.

We conclude that potential interested parties have received reasonable notice concerning the Joint Utilities' application. Although not required by Commission rules, the Joint Utilities served the application on November 29, 2011 on the Rulemaking 05-10-030 service list, which is the Commission's most recent rulemaking on ATRs. Notice of the application was published in the Commission's daily calendar and website on December 1, 2011, further providing notice to members of the public. Given these actions to provide notice of the application and opportunity to be heard regarding the issues therein, we conclude that sufficient notice of the application to potentially interested parties has been provided.

By Resolution ALJ 176-3286, dated December 15, 2011, the Commission preliminarily categorized this proceeding as ratesetting, and preliminarily determined that no hearings were necessary. Because the record supporting the application is now complete, and no party, including DRA, contests the application, no prehearing conference is necessary. A prehearing conference had been initially scheduled for March 7, 2012, but was subsequently cancelled by the assigned ALJ. We affirm that no hearings are necessary. This decision is issued based on the submitted written record.