3. Procedural History
Notice of the Application appeared in the Commission's July 1, 2004 daily calendar. Resolution ALJ 176-3136, dated July 8, 2004, preliminarily categorized the application as ratesetting and determined that hearings were necessary. The Commission's in-house consumer advocacy arm, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed a timely protest on July 30, 2004. On July 14, 2004,8 the ALJ required SDG&E to serve supplemental testimony. On July 29, 2004, SDG&E served the requested supplemental testimony as Ex. SDG&E-4. On October 29, 20049, the ALJ required SDG&E to further supplement the testimony contained in EX. SDG&E-4 and on November 10, 2004, SDG&E served Ex. SDG&E-7 in response. A Prehearing Conference was held on August 17, 2004 and ORA, the Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet) and the Utility Consumer Action Network (UCAN) served timely prehearing Conference Statements.
On August 27, 2003 The Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (Scoping Memo) designated the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) as the principal hearing officer as defined in Rule 5(l) of the Rules. It also determined that this is a ratesetting proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 5(k)(2), the principal hearing officer is the presiding officer for this proceeding, and is responsible for issuing the proposed decision pursuant to Code § 311(d) and Rule 8.1.
The scope of this proceeding was identified10 as:
· Reasonableness of SDG&E's overall management of the restoration of service in a safe and timely manner, consistent with worker safety, public need, and equitable treatment of customers.
· Reasonableness of the gross amount of Operating & Maintenance Expenses recorded in the Wildfire Account.
· Reasonableness of the gross amount of Capital Expenditures recorded in the Wildfire Account.
· Reasonableness of SDG&E's determination of incremental costs as defined by Resolution E-3238.
· Reasonableness of the forecast 2005 ongoing capital-related costs of $4.3 million for electric distribution and gas revenue requirements. This includes an analysis of any 2005 incremental or avoided expense or capital expenditure impacts on SDG&E's subsequent operations as a result of service restoration after the Wildfires.
· Allocation of all costs between the jurisdictions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission.
· The reasonableness and timing of SDG&E's proposed ratemaking treatment of any authorized recovery of the Wildfire Account balances.
Testimony was served by ORA and UCAN on October 22, 2004. Evidentiary hearings were conducted on November 15 - 16, 2004, and over 20 exhibits were received in evidence. All issues are ready for consideration.
In accordance with the Scoping Memo, opening and reply briefs were filed by SDG&E, ORA, and UCAN, on December 3, 2004 and December 10, 2004, respectively. A late-filed exhibit, Ex. SDG&E-9, was served to update the balance in the Wildfire Account. It was received into evidence on January 18, 2004, and on February 7, 2005 ORA and UCAN filed comments. SDG&E served an errata, Ex. SDG&E-10 on February 4, 2005 and it was received into evidence. The matter was submitted on February 9, 2005. This decision adopts rates consistent with Ex. SDG&E-9 and SDG&E-10 as modified for the reasonableness adjustments to the recorded costs.
8 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Requiring San Diego Gas & Electric Company to Provide Further Information to Supplement its Application. The Ruling identified 6 specific deficiencies and directed SDG&E to provide adequate documentation or further explanations, as appropriate, in the form of additional testimony.
9 Administrative Law Judge's Second Ruling Requiring San Diego Gas & Electric Company to Provide Further Information to Supplement its Application.
10 Scoping Memo, pp. 3-4.
