Protests

ORA protested the implementation of AL 2560-G/2534-E on the basis that it was not timely filed, raised factual issues, and does not comply with the minimum requirements for implementation as set forth in the original order. ORA maintains that the analysis, factual evidence and testimony relied on by the Commission when it issued D.95-12-055 are outdated and that PG&E should not be allowed to rely on an eight-year-old decision to implement a late payment fee that should have been addressed in its most recent GRC.

ORA also states that PG&E has not complied with the minimum requirement for late payment fee implementation established in D.95-12-055 and that PG&E's request is too ambiguous with respect to the criterion for determining the timeliness of payment. ORA categorized PG&E's proposed 1% per month fee as another factual issue.

ORA recommends that if PG&E still seeks to implement a late payment fee and associated tariff changes, it should do so by filing an application through which PG&E can present evidence on the implementation of such a fee, including the revenue impact associated with the implementation of the fee.

TURN also protested AL 2560-G/2534-E. TURN argues that since PG&E did not identify implementing the late payment charge as part of either of the two general rate cases that have been litigated and decided since D.95-12-055, and the additional revenues that would result, PG&E's AL must be rejected. TURN asserts that it would not have agreed to the settlement adopted in D.04-05-055, had PG&E notified parties of its intention to seek approval of the late payment fee.

TURN recommends that the Commission re-open the evidentiary record in A.02-11-017 and require testimony and hearings to explore the revenue impacts of the late payment fee and understand the extent to which PG&E's proposal would modify the settlement adopted in D-04-05-055.