VII. Pending Motion

Subsequent to the filing of reply briefs, Aglet filed an objection to SCE including Appendices A and B with all references to those appendices in SCE's reply brief on the basis that parties have not had an opportunity to cross-exam any witnesses on it. Aglet seeks a ruling that excludes the above information from the record, or in the alternative, a similar result by this decision.

Responses to Aglet's motion were filed by ORA, PG&E, and SCE. ORA concurs with Aglet's motion on the basis that SCE is using its reply brief to introduce new evidence.

PG&E and SCE oppose Aglet's motion. PG&E, not taking a position on the merits of the disputed information, believes that the questionable information should be admitted to show the positions that Mr. Weil and ORA took in that proceeding. SCE explains that its attachments were included in its reply brief to demonstrate how the Commission considered procurement risk and that ORA introduced and addressed the issue of levered and unlevered betas in the 1999 cost of capital proceeding.

Appendix A consists of excerpts from "TURN/UCAN/Weil Testimony In 1999 Cost of Capital Proceeding A.98-05-019 et al." wherein Aglet's witness states his opinion on regulated distribution utility risk and Appendix B contains excerpts from ORA's "Testimony By Dr. Bradford Cornell In 1999 Cost of Capital Proceeding, A.98-05-019 et al." on betas.

There should be no dispute that both procurement risk and levered/unlevered betas were addressed in this proceeding.³⁴ SCE included the questionable appendices in its reply brief to show how these issues were considered in the 1999 cost of capital proceeding. The appendices do not represent new evidence. Rather, they demonstrate that Weil and ORA addressed these same issues in the 1999 cost of capital proceeding. Such positions are dated and not necessarily their current position on these issues, as such, the appendices should be allowed to show only that Weil and ORA addressed these issues in the 1999 cost of capital proceeding. Aglet's motion to exclude these appendices should be denied.