5. Review by Other Parties
UCAN proposes in its opening brief a standard of review that would preclude SDG&E from recovery of costs subject to the CEMA tariff provisions unless ORA performed a review sufficient to meet the standards as asserted by UCAN. This argument would shift the burden of proof to ORA - it would unreasonably shift to ORA the Commission's obligation to determine whether a utility behaved in a reasonable fashion. Neither UCAN nor ORA are obliged to review an application by SDG&E before the Commission can make a finding on reasonableness: their appearance often informs the proceeding; but it is not a precondition for the Commission to reach a decision.
UCAN relies on a decision rejecting a settlement where ORA assumed the burden of a settling party18 to show that the settlement was fair. Our standard for a settlement is established in Rule 51.1(e) that requires it to be "reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest." The Commission found in D.01-02-075 that ORA had not performed sufficient analysis, so as to have an adequate and informed opinion, necessary to settle with SoCalGas.
UCAN's interpretation of D.01-02-075 would tie the hands of the Commission giving ORA a virtual veto over any rate recovery. If ORA did not participate, logically according to UCAN, we could not find the applicant's request to be reasonable. As noted previously, this is not the case.
18 D.01-02-075, Conclusion of Law No. 1: "The burden of proving that the settlement is fair is on the proponents."
