2. Background
Consistent with the Commission's Rate Case Plan (RCP), PG&E's GRC is considered in two phases-Phase 1 to consider revenue requirement issues and Phase 2 to consider marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design issues. PG&E filed its 2007 GRC Phase 1 Application (A.) 05-12-002 on December 2, 2005. Pursuant to the RCP, PG&E's Phase 2 proposal is due 90 days after its Phase 1 filing. Thus, PG&E's Phase 2 proposal was filed on March 2, 2006 by A.06-03-005.1 In support of its request, PG&E provided testimony on its marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design proposals.
Ten public participation hearings (PPHs) were held at various locations in PG&E's service territory during April and May 2006.2 Letters, electronic mail messages and petitions representing the views of hundreds of ratepayers were also received at the Commission.
A PHC for Phase 2 was held on May 3, 2006. On May 25, 2006, the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo was issued. The Scoping Memo, among other things, determined that the category for this proceeding is ratesetting, stated the issues, and set the schedule.
Consistent with the Scoping Memo schedule, PG&E served update testimony on June 26, 2006, Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) served its testimony on September 13, 2006, and other parties served their testimonies on October 27, 2006.3 A meet and confer session on settlement issues was held on September 20, 2006. A mandatory settlement conference was then held on November 1, 2006. On November 6, 2006, PG&E, on behalf of the Settling Parties, contacted the assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) and requested an extension of the schedule to accommodate further settlement discussions. That request was granted by ALJ Ruling of November 9, 2006. Subsequent requests for extensions of time to accommodate the settlement process were granted by ALJ Rulings of December 14, 2006, January 9, 2007, March 22, 2007, and April 24, 2007. Evidentiary hearing was held April 17, 2007. The marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design phase of this application was submitted for decision on May 25, 2007.
1 On January 23, 2006, the Commission held a prehearing conference (PHC) in PG&E's Phase 1 application. At the PHC, PG&E indicated that it planned to submit its Phase 2 proposal in the same docket as its Phase 1 showing, consistent with the RCP. Assigned Commissioner Bohn issued a ruling on February 3, 2006, directing PG&E to "file a separate application for Phase 2 issues" on the grounds that such "treatment of Phase 2 issues is consistent with recent GRC proceedings and the Commission's responsibility under Pub. Util. Code § 1701.5 to complete ratesetting proceedings within 18 months." Consistent with the ruling, PG&E submitted its test year 2007 Phase 2 showing as a separate application.
2 The PPHs addressed both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 applications and were held at the following locations: Oakland, Ukiah, Santa Rosa, King City, Salinas, San Louis Obispo, Modesto, Fresno, Woodland, and Chico.
3 Concurrently, on a separate track, the Commission was considering PG&E's request for an expedited decision on the agricultural definition issue. A settlement between PG&E and all parties concerned with this issue was ultimately adopted by Decision (D.) 06-11-030.
