As required by D.97-10-057, PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E filed applications in order to establish the ratemaking mechanisms for the period following the rate freeze and to establish procurement and ratemaking policies for the post-transition period. As we discussed in D.99-10-057, Pub. Util. Code § 368(a)1 established that electric rates would remain fixed at the June 10, 1996 levels, except that rates for residential and small commercial customers were reduced by 10% from those levels. This "rate freeze" was put into place in order to allow PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E to recover uneconomic investments in generation facilities. Section 367 defined these uneconomic costs, or transition costs, and established that such costs must be recovered by December 31, 2001, with certain exceptions, as delineated in §§ 367, 375, 376, and 381. Pursuant to § 368(a), the rate freeze continues until the generation-related transition costs are recovered, but no later than March 31, 2002.
A prehearing conference (PHC) was held on February 18, 1999. The scoping memo, issued on March 11, 1999, divided consideration of these applications into two phases and established that the assigned administrative law judges (ALJ) are the principal hearing officers.2 Phase 1 addressed the mechanics of ending the rate freeze and these issues were considered in D.99-10-057. SDG&E filed an additional application, Application (A.) 99-02-029, in which it notified the Commission of its intent to end the rate freeze on approximately July 1, 1999. A second PHC was held on March 12 to discuss the impact of A.99-02-029, which was consolidated with these proceedings. A second Scoping Memo was issued on March 15. The Commission reviewed the proposed ratemaking and accounting mechanisms on an expedited basis. These issues were addressed in a settlement by the active parties that resolved outstanding issues for SDG&E on an interim basis. The Commission adopted the settlement, with conditions, in D.99-05-051, which was further refined with respect to Phase 1 issues in D.99-10-057.
Ten days of evidentiary hearings were held and Commissioner Duque attended closing arguments on September 27. The proceedings were submitted upon receipt of reply briefs, on November 5, 1999.3 On October 27, SDG&E, ORA, UCAN, CalPX and other parties filed a proposed partial settlement agreement and on October 29, these parties filed a motion to set aside submission of the proceeding. On November 2, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling establishing dates for commenting on the proposed settlement and for responses to the petition to set aside submission. These proceedings were properly reopened for purposes of considering the settlement and comments on the settlement. The proceedings are deemed submitted as of December 13, the date of reply comments on the settlement.
1 All statutory references are to the Pub. Util. Code, unless otherwise noted. 2 ALJ Kim Malcolm was the principal hearing officer for Phase 1; ALJ Angela Minkin is the principal hearing officer for Phase 2. 3 PG&E, Edison, SDG&E, ORA, California Energy Commission (CEC), UCAN, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), James Weil (Weil), Federal Executive Agencies (FEA), Alliance for Retail Markets (ARM), Western Power Trading Forum, CalPX, Automated Power Exchange (APX), Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE), California Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau), California City-County Street Light Association (CAL-SLA), jointly California Department of General Services, University of California, and California State Universities (collectively, State Consumers), New West Energy Corporation, Commonwealth Energy Corporation, and, jointly, California Manufacturers Association, California Large Energy Consumers Association, and California Industrial Users (collectively, Large Users) filed concurrent opening briefs. With the exception of Weil and Commonwealth, the same parties filed concurrent reply briefs. On November 5, Large Users requested leave to file their joint reply brief one day late. This motion is granted.