Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by SDG&E on April 17, 2006. No other party commented.

SDG&E comments that the proposed decision is "overly strict" for SDG&E's burden of proof, arguing the Commission is in the best position to interpret the Edison general rate case decision. SDG&E suggests the "entire dispute is about the meaning and intent of an already-issued Commission decision." (Comments, p. 4.) We disagree: the burden has been SDG&E's - beginning in the Edison proceeding and carried forward into this proceeding - to offer persuasive evidence of a reasonable test year forecast. As noted, rehearing was granted to "give the parties an opportunity to help clarify and develop an adequate evidentiary record." (D.05-05-018, p. 5.) On rehearing SDG&E alleged specific errors and it has the burden to support its specific contentions of error. It is not extreme to impose a burden of proof even when SDG&E's testimony was unopposed. (Comments, p. 5.)

Results Sharing: SDG&E's comments demonstrate that the ALJ's proposed decision incorrectly escalated Results Sharing only from 2003 to 2004 (which are Edison's test year and SDG&E's, respectively) when the forecast begins with 2000 costs. (Comments, pp. 6 - 7). SDG&E also comments that the proposed decision fails to include contractual overheads. (Comments pp. 5 - 6.) This decision is changed to clarify and correctly escalate the forecast. We do not agree that Results Sharing requires a separate contractual overhead allowance when contractual overheads were separately at issue as an alleged error. In fact, this decision grants SDG&E the full contractual overheads request sought on rehearing. Therefore, a further allowance would constitute a duplicate recovery.

We otherwise find that SDG&E's remaining comments do not persuade us to further alter the proposed decision.