10. SCE's Affected Utility Employees

10.1. SCE's Proposal

SCE, through its Ex. SCE-3, Workforce Impact Mitigation Measures provided its plans for employee redeployment and/or severance from the company. As of June 2002, there were 56 ETPC employees, of which 33 are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), A.F.L. - C.I.O., Local No.246, while 23 fill management and administrative roles. SCE states that it will continue to operate EPTC until the close of sale. SCE states that although the employees may fully recognize that their current jobs with SCE are being eliminated, the potential for receiving worker protection benefits to assist them while looking for their next position is a positive inducement to continue working - in this case this case, providing their services and maintaining the continuity of the EPTC operation - until severance benefits become available.

SCE states that they and the UWUA have bargained a reasonable set of worker protection benefits for those workers who are displaced from their employment at SCE. These benefits are known as the Pipeline Severance Benefits (PSB). This package includes early retirement benefits, severance payments, outplacement and educational assistance programs and specifies the procedures that will be followed for force reduction. SCE notes that similar benefit programs are in place for employees who are not represented by a union but who likewise would experience negative impacts due the sale of the EPTC facilities. SCE estimates that its cost for these measures will be about $4.8 million.

10.2. CUE's Position

In its briefs, CUE states that the evidence in SCE Ex. 3, p. 2, Workforce Impact Mitigation Measures, shows that EPTC's employees would lose their jobs as a result of the proposed transfer. CUE claims that SCE witness Nelson hints that some of these employees might be redeployed to other positions with SCE and describes available severance plan benefits, but does not assure continued employment for any of the affected employees. (Id., p. 1.)

CUE notes that Pacific Terminals claims that that it "anticipates that it will hire a substantial number of the current EPTC employees,"³⁰ but does not make a commitment to do so. CUE cites Ex. 303, which is an internal memo from the SCE' Vice President of the Generation Business Unit who had responsibility for EPTC management, to highlight the accomplishments of the EPTC employees and the unit itself.

10.3. Pacific Terminals' Proposal

Pacific Terminals notes in its reply brief that while CUE stated that Pacific Terminals had failed to make any commitment to hire current EPTC employees, CUE ignored the fact that at the time of the hearing, it was impossible for Pacific Terminals to be more definitive. Pacific Terminals states that it did not have the opportunity to interview the employees who might be interested in employment. Pacific Terminals states that these preliminary steps have now been taken, and it has requested that the Commission accept late-filed Exhibit No. 111, which summarizes the results of the interview and job offer process.

Pacific Terminals also notes that CUE overlooks the workforce mitigation measures proposed by SCE and notes that CUE has not challenged the fairness or reasonableness of SCE's Workforce Mitigation Measures.

10.4. ORA's Position

ORA does not oppose SCE's Workforce Mitigation Measures.

10.5. Discussion

We have reviewed SCE's Workforce Mitigation Measures and late-filed Exhibit No. 111 and CUE's comments. We believe that the measures proposed by SCE are reasonable. As of October 2002 there were 32 represented employees and 23 management and administrative employees, for a total number of 55 employees, down one from the time the application was filed. Exhibit No. 111, which was late-filed (and is accepted), provides the following breakdown of Pacific Terminals' results of its interviewing process to which we have added the last line to provide an additional perspective:

	Applications/ Interviews	Job Offers	% Offers	Acceptances
Unrepresented EPTC Employees	15	11	73%	10
Union Represented EPTC Employees	30	27	90%	26
Total Interviewed	45	38	84%	36
Total EPTC Employees	55	38	69%	36

From the above tabulation, we can conclude that of the total of 32 represented employees of EPTC, 30 received interviews or filed applications, and 27 received offers. The 23 managers and administrative employees did not do as well; there were 11 offers with 10 acceptances.

We note that CUE filed a response to late-filed Exhibit No. 111, a declaration of Daniel Dominguez, Business Manager, UWUA Local 246, providing the following information:

· On October 8, 2002, EPTC represented employees submitted their selections under the first cycle of SCE's Reduction In Force (RIF) process for the EPTC facilities. Of the 33 representative employees currently working at EPTC, 16 elected to remain in SCE's employ during the first cycle of the RIF process. One employee has accepted a job transfer to SCE's transmission and distribution department. This means that, if the EPTC facilities are sold, these 17 employees have currently chosen to move to other, non-EPTC positions with SCE rather than leave SCE's employ.

· Sixteen of the EPTC employees have selected to take the Pipeline Severance Benefit (PSB) and sever their employment with SCE. Of the sixteen employees that selected PSB, two did not apply for a job with Pacific Terminals and one applied but was not offered a job.

· In total 20 of the 33 EPTC represented employees have currently (October 2002) stated their intention not to work for Pacific Terminals.

We interpret Mr. Dominguez' declaration together with Pacific Terminals' Exhibit No. 111 as follows:

· If 16 of the represented EPTC employees accepted SCE's PSB, and one accepted a transfer, then SCE's Workforce Mitigation Measures, in this case, are successful. Of course, as Pacific Terminals responded to CUE's filing, this does not mean that these employees have accepted or have been offered new positions with SCE, but more importantly that 27 were offered positions, and 26 accepted offers to work for Pacific Terminals.

· Mr. Dominguez does not tell us what fate has in store for the other 16 EPTC represented employees. If we are to believe Exhibit No. 111, where 27 offers were made to represented EPTC employees, we can infer that some, if not all, of these were among the 26 who accepted offers from Pacific Terminals and some may be among the 16 who took the PSB or the one who transferred. But it is safe to say that there appear to be few, if any, represented employees who will be without employment, either with SCE or Pacific Terminals. Pacific Terminals reiterates that 26 of 27 EPTC employees interviewed accepted offers of employment. We can understand why an employee might say he or she would chose to continue working for SCE, but faced with the possibility of the sale being approved, also accept employment with Pacific Terminals.

· We do not know what will become of the 12 managerial and administrative EPTC employees who did not receive offers for employment with Pacific Terminals. We can hope and assume that they will be offered other jobs within SCE or will take advantage of the Severance Plan for the unrepresented employees.

In the best of all worlds, we would like to see no negative impact on any of SCE's employees due to this proposed sale; we cannot, nor can the companies, guarantee such a result. In conclusion we believe that SCE and Pacific Terminals have mitigated as much as possible the effect of this proposed sale on EPTC employees. Therefore, § 854 (c)(4) is satisfied.