Procedural History
In D.97-04-067, we ordered SDG&E to file an application requesting approval of a distribution PBR mechanism. On January 6, 1998, SDG&E filed Application (A.) 98-01-014 to request authority to establish such a mechanism. ORA and UCAN filed timely protests, to which SDG&E filed a reply. SDG&E, ORA, and UCAN (jointly for UCAN, NRDC, Enron, FEA, and City of San Diego) filed prehearing conference statements.
On January 1, 1998, Senate Bill 960 became effective, which established various procedures for our proceedings. These rules are delineated in Public Utilities (PU) Code §§ 1701 et seq. and Article 2.5 of our Rules of Practice and Procedure. In accordance with the SB 960 rules, this proceeding has been categorized as ratesetting (ALJ 176-2986, as noticed in the Daily Calendar of February 6, 1998).
On March 17, 1998, Assigned Commissioner Neeper and Assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Minkin presided at a prehearing conference. Commissioner Neeper then issued a scoping memo which designated ALJ Minkin as the principal hearing officer for this proceeding. The scoping memo set forth the issues to be included in this proceeding and established a procedural schedule under which the Commission would issue a final decision in this proceeding by March 1999, or in no event no later than 18 months from the date of filing of the application, pursuant to SB 960, Section 13. Commissioner Neeper also encouraged parties to meet and confer on an informal basis to attempt to resolve issues.
At the request of parties, the scoping memo was amended to revise the procedural schedule to delay hearings and set a second prehearing conference on August 10, 1998. ORA,UCAN, FEA, CCUE, and NRDC submitted testimony on SDG&E's proposal on July 3, 1998. SDG&E and CCUE submitted rebuttal testimony on July 31. Informal discussions among the parties led to two technical workshops held in San Francisco on August 20 and 27. A formal settlement conference was noticed on September 2, in conformance with Rule 51, and held on September 14. The settling parties filed and served the Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement on PBR Performance Indicators on September 15, 1998. No party filed comments. 2 No evidentiary hearings were held on the issues addressed in the proposed settlement agreement.
PBR design issues were addressed in four days of evidentiary hearings held on September 2, 3, 4, and 14. Commissioner Neeper was in attendance for closing arguments on September 16. Public participation hearings were held in San Diego and Escondido on September 23 and September 24, respectively, at which Commissioner Neeper and ALJ Minkin presided. This proceeding was submitted upon opening and reply briefs, filed on October 9 and October 23, respectively.3
2 The settling parties also requested that the Commission shorten the time for opening comments and reply comments on the proposed settlement agreement. There was no reason to shorten time, but given the all-party nature of the settlement, no comments were filed. Thus, this request is moot. 3 By separate motions filed on October 26, UCAN requests leave to file a corrected opening brief and to file its reply brief late. Good cause being shown, these motions are granted.
