I. INTRODUCTION
In this Order we dispose of the joint application for rehearing of Decision (D.) 06-05-042 filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") and Southern California Edison Company ("SCE").
In D.05-09-018, we approved a uniform economic development rate ("EDR") program for PG&E and SCE. The utilities' Joint Proposal in the proceeding included a floor price to be used for purposes of calculating the charges against which the EDR discount can be applied. The floor price represents the utility's minimum revenue from the EDR customer.
Under the utilities' proposed floor price, the EDR incentive would be calculated based on the customer's otherwise applicable tariff ("OAT"). The discounted amount, however, would not be applied to certain components of the OAT. These "non-discounted" components would constitute the floor price and consisted of nonbypassable charges including: [FERC jurisdictional] transmission charges; public purpose program ("PPP") charges; DWR Bond Charges; nuclear decommissioning ("ND") charges; [tail] Competition Transition Charges ("CTC"); marginal costs for distribution; and, if bundled customer, marginal costs for generation.
Decision 05-09-018 modified the proposed floor price to exclude the nonbypassable charges, so that the EDR discount could be applied to those charges. Collection of many of the nonbypassable charges is mandated by statute.1 Thus, in effect, D.05-09-018 granted exceptions from the various statutory requirements to collect the nonbypassable charges.
Aglet Consumer Alliance challenged D.05-09-018 claiming in pertinent part that: (1) the Decision violated Rule 77.3 by modifying the floor price based on evidence outside the record; and (2) the Commission excluded DWR Bond Charges from the floor price contrary to the legislative intent and purpose of Public Utilities Code section 366.2(d)(1).2
In D.06-05-042 ("Rehearing Decision"), we determined that good cause had been shown to grant a limited rehearing of D.05-09-018. Finding that the record in D.05-09-018 was not sufficient to grant the exclusion of nonbypassable charges from the floor price, we granted limited rehearing to examine the effect of applicable statutes and related Commission policies to any desired exception from nonbypassable charges for EDR customers. The outcome of the limited rehearing is still pending. However, as required by D.06-05-042, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has issued a ruling defining the scope of the proceeding, including a number of specified issues for consideration.3
PG&E and SCE timely filed a joint application for rehearing of D.06-05-042. The utilities challenge D.06-05-042 on the grounds that: (1) it violates section 1757 by providing that the issue of shareholder benefits may be considered in the limited rehearing; and (2) the Commission abused its discretion by providing that EDR charges under D.05-09-018 are subject to adjustment pending conclusion of the limited rehearing.
We have carefully considered each and every argument raised in the joint application for rehearing and are of the opinion that good cause does not exist to grant rehearing. As briefly explained below, the joint application for rehearing is dismissed because it does not satisfy the criteria for accepting an application for rehearing of a decision on rehearing. Moreover, the issues PG&E and SCE raise were properly determined to fall within the scope of limited rehearing and are best addressed in that forum.
1 See e.g., Public Utilities Code section 366.2(d) (concerning DWR Bond Charges), section 381 et seq. (concerning PPP charges), section 379 (concerning ND charges), and section 367 (concerning CTC charges).
2 All section references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise stated.
3 See Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Regarding Order Granting Limited Rehearing of Decision (D.) 05-09-018 Regarding the Floor Price for EDR ("ALJ Ruling"), dated June 22, 2006.
