SCE Motion
SCE's motion seeks to strike the comparative pricing exhibit of IEP (Exhibit 18). SCE argues that Exhibit 18 does not truly represent the IEP methodology set forth in IEP's initial testimony, Exhibit 4. SCE explains its tardiness in seeking to strike and/or rebut IEP's exhibit stems from the late receipt of workpapers from IEP detailing the methodology. Without the IEP workpapers, SCE could not determine whether the methodologies utilized in Exhibit 4 and 18 were the same. After receiving workpapers, SCE concludes that different methodologies have been used and attaches a declaration by Dr. Richard B. Davis to rebut IEP's Exhibit 18.
I will not strike Exhibit 18, however I will reopen the record to admit the declaration of Dr. Richard B. Davis as additional rebuttal. I allow this additional rebuttal due to the lateness of the receipt of workpapers and because I believe it provides useful clarification of the SCE's analysis of IEP's comparative exhibit. SCE's motion to strike is denied but the motion to reopen the record to receive the declaration of Dr. Richard B. Davis as additional rebuttal testimony is granted. The declaration of Dr. Richard B. Davis will be marked as Exhibit 79 and will be received into evidence as of the date of this ruling.
SCE also requests that we admit Exhibit 57, a document that was identified on April 3, 2000 but not admitted. Exhibit 57 was prepared by SCE as a comparative exhibit of all parties proposed pricing methodologies. Numerous objections were raised to its admissibility and use during hearings. At hearing, Commissioner Neeper and I concluded that each party should prepare its own exhibit demonstrating its pricing proposal unless all parties could agree upon a joint exhibit. No agreement was reached on the preparation of a joint exhibit. No change has occurred which would cause me to modify the prior ruling with respect to the admission of Exhibit 57, therefore, that aspect of SCE's current motion is denied.
IT IS RULED that:
1. The May 17, 2000 motion to strike by the California Cogeneration Council is denied.
2. The June 1, 2000 motion to strike by the Independent Energy Producers Association is denied.
3. The June 1, 2000 motion to strike by Southern California Edison Company is denied, the motion to admit Exhibit 57 is denied, but the motion to reopen the record to receive the declaration of Dr. Richard B. Davis as additional rebuttal testimony is granted.
4. The declaration of Dr. Richard B. Davis is identified as Exhibit 79 and will be marked as received into evidence as of June 20, 2000.
5. The motion to accept the amended Section 390 Opening Brief of the Cogeneration Association of California, Energy Producers and Users Coalition, Coalinga Cogeneration Company, and Midway Sunset Cogeneration Company is granted.
6. The following party is granted Interested Party status:
Edward W. O'Neill
Jeffer, Mangels, Butler and Marmaro LLP
for El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P.
One Sansome Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Dated June 20, 2000, at San Francisco, California.
Michelle Cooke Administrative Law Judge |
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Addressing Motions to Strike and Other Procedural Matters on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record. In addition, service was also performed by electronic mail.
Dated June 20, 2000, at San Francisco, California.
Fannie Sid |
NOTICE
Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.
