VI. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

ORA and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed comments to the proposed decision and SCE filed reply comments. Much of ORA's comments merely reargue positions it took in its brief and will be disregarded. (Rule 77.3.)

We find without merit ORA's argument that the December 31, 2001 deadline for recovering generation-related stranded costs in Section 367(a) of AB 1890 precludes our granting recovery of the costs at issue here. It ignores D.02-11-026 where we held that the surcharge revenues imposed by D.01-03-082 may be applied to return each utility to financial health. (D.02-11-026, Finding of Fact 5, pp. 18-19.) In D.02-11-026, we reviewed ABX1-6, which modified, among other statutes, § 330(l)(2) and § 377, and we held that we retained jurisdiction to determine what generation costs utilities may recover in rates. (Id. at 14.) Nothing in AB 1890 as originally enacted limits the costs which may be recoverable under cost-of-service ratemaking. ABX1-6 specifically reauthorizes the Commission to regulate rates for the utilities' generation related costs. (D.02-11-026 at 16.) It is clear to us that December 31, 2001 is not a deadline to recover the costs at issue here, which were incurred under CPUC tariffs prior to August 31, 2001.

TURN argues that the Proposed Decision discusses the wholesale procurement cost issue of the federal settlement as if all parties agreed the wholesale procurement costs were the federal issue. TURN points out that in the federal case the Commission took the position that the costs were generation related. For this ATCP it is not necessary to determine procurement versus generation; what is clear is that SCE's pleadings in the federal case alleged the costs were procurement costs. This opinion has been modified to reflect that SCE alleged the costs were procurement.