ALJ/BMD/avs Mailed 8/27/2002
Decision 02-08-061 August 22, 2002
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of New Rates To Be Implemented At The End Of The Rate Freeze Period And Other Requested Relief. |
Application 00-01-009 (Filed January 7, 2000) |
OPINION ON REQUEST FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
This decision awards The Utility Reform Network (TURN) $17,521.28 in compensation for its contribution to Decision (D.) 02-01-031.
1. Background
In this decision, the Commission dismissed without prejudice the application of Southern California Edison Company (Edison) seeking approval of various revenue allocation and rate design proposals that would have become effective with the end of the statutory rate freeze. Following the time that Edison filed its application in January 2000, significant energy events occurred that changed the appropriate rates for the post rate-freeze period. These events included substantial increases in wholesale energy costs, procurement of energy by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and eventual implementation of conservation-oriented electric rate design principles in D.01-05-064.
On June 4, 2001 the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling asking for recommendations for disposition of the application. Edison filed a proposal to either withdraw the application, or in the alternative, that the application be dismissed without prejudice. Edison argued that the ratemaking issues in its application had been addressed or were being addressed in other proceedings, and thus, it would not be appropriate to implement additional rate design changes in the near term. Edison proposed that rate design should be considered as a second phase of a test year 2003 general rate case filing. TURN recommended adoption of Edison's proposal for dismissal without prejudice, and requested that the Commission articulate the reasons for the dismissal and provide an opportunity for TURN to file an intervenor compensation request.
In D.02-01-031, adopted January 9, 2002, the Commission dismissed the application without prejudice, expressed that these rate design issues have already been addressed, or are being addressed in other proceedings, and concluded that there is no need to litigate rate design methodologies in this proceeding. D.02-01-031 also protected the rights of eligible parties to request intervenor compensation.
