VI. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ______________________, and reply comments were filed on____________________________________.
Findings of Fact
1. SDG&E submitted its 2002 RWD application and testimony in accordance with the schedule adopted in D.89-01-040, as amended by D.95-09-020.
2. ORA submitted its testimony on April 25, 2002.
3. FEA, Farm Bureau, and WMA submitted testimony on May 9, 2002.
4. SDG&E noticed an all-party settlement conference. That notice was in conformance with Rule 51.1(b). All parties attended that conference.
5. A standard to be applied in reviewing all-party settlements was established in SDG&E's A.91-11-024 general rate case proceeding.
6. An agreement signed by all parties was filed on June 7, 2002 and subject to an evidentiary hearing on June 10, 2002.
7. Sponsoring parties represent the small commercial, commercial and industrial, and agricultural customers that will be affected by the agreement.
8. The parties represent that the agreement complies with all statues and prior Commission decisions.
9. The settling parties' representative clarified that language in the agreement precluding any legal action being brought against individual parties related to the agreement is in no way intended to have the Commission assume liability of the settling parties.
10. The settling parties' representative clarified that language in the agreement providing parties the right to seek Commission modification any time after the Commission issues a decision is not intended to provide parties the opportunity to seek modification of a decision that may adopt the agreement in its entirety.
11. Parties agree to consolidate Schedule A-VI into other schedules and to provide SDG&E a 60-day period to smoothly transition customers off that schedule to other appropriate schedules.
1. The agreement satisfies the standard for all-party settlements and is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. The agreement should be adopted.
2. SDG&E should be authorized a transition period for moving customers off Schedule A-V1.
3. Consistent with Rule 51.8, this agreement is not precedent and does not constitute approval of any principle or issue in future proceedings.
4. This order should be effective today in order to allow the agreement to be implemented immediately.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) is authorized to establish the rates and tariff language set forth in Appendix A & B.
2. SDG&E shall file an advice letter to revise its respective tariffs to incorporate the tariff changes authorized herein within five days after the effective date of this order. Except for Tariff Schedule A-V1, changes shall go into effect within 5 days of filing unless suspended by the Energy Division Director. If the Energy Division Director suspends any tariffs, such tariffs shall become effective upon the date the Energy Division Director confirms that the tariffs are in compliance.
3. The consolidation of Schedule A-VI into other schedules shall become effective within 5 days of filing unless suspended by the Energy Division. SDG&E shall have 60-days from the effective date of the tariffs to transition customers off Schedule A-VI to other appropriate schedules. If the Energy Division Director suspends any tariffs, such tariffs shall become effective upon the date the Energy Division Director confirms that the tariffs are in compliance.
4. Application 01-11-004 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated _____________________, at San Francisco, California.
APPENDIX A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALL ACTIVE PARTIES TO SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S NOVEMBER 1, 2001 RATE DESIGN WINDOW PROCEEDING,
APPLICATION 01-11-004
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
A. Introduction
This Settlement proposes resolutions to the issues raised in San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E) November 1, 2001 Rate Design Window Proceeding (RDW), Application (A.) 01-11-004 (the Settlement). The Settlement is made by and among all of the interested parties, specifically SDG&E, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the Federal Executive Agencies (FEA), the California Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau) and the Western Manufactured Housing Community Association (WMA) collectively referred to as the "Parties."9[1] The Settlement was achieved pursuant to Rules 51 through 51.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules).
B. Background
In accordance with the schedule adopted in Decision (D.) 89-01-040, as modified by D.94-08-023, SDG&E filed its proposed changes to various marginal costs and revenue allocation methodologies in July 2001. On November 1, 2001, SDG&E submitted its RDW Application. Based upon the ORA report and responsive testimony submitted by FEA, the Farm Bureau and WMA, SDG&E believed that there was an opportunity to settle all contested issues. To achieve that end, the Parties held several face-to-face meetings and conference calls, and exchanged various data to further clarify each Party's position. Because these discussions were quite productive, SDG&E noticed a formal Settlement Conference for May 10, 2002, in accordance with Rule 51.1(b) of the Commission's Rules.
The Settlement Conference was held as scheduled in San Francisco, California, at the Sempra Energy Office, 601Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA. All active parties attended. As permitted by Rule 51.b, the Parties held two additional meetings in San Francisco. Both subsequent meetings were orally noticed and attended by prior conference attendees. The Settlement below describes the Parties initial positions and the final agreement reached by the Parties.
CHAPTER II: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
A. Residential Rate Design
1. Residential Customer Charge
