Comments on the Draft Decision and Alternate Draft Decision

The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by the Settling Parties. The Settling Parties pointed out some minor technical errors in the decision, which have been corrected. The Settling Parties support the draft decision but request a modification of Ordering Paragraph 7 because it is not clear that full recovery of PROACT will be projected to occur during June, which would be the basis for lower rates to take effect July 1. Ordering Paragraph 7 calls for SCE to file within 10 days of the effective date of the order an Advice Letter with revised tariff sheets, and provides that those revised SCE tariff sheets "shall become effective July 1, 2003, subject to a finding of compliance by the Energy Division." The Settling Parties point out that the Settlement Agreement calls for SCE to make a forecast of PROACT recovery during whatever is the then-current month, based on the recorded data from the prior month. But because at this time it is not certain that recovery will be made in June the draft decision should be revised to order SCE to follow the forecast-based methodology called for in the Settlement Agreement without the hard and fast date of July 1 for lower rates.

We recognize that requiring a date certain in the ordering paragraph is a deviation from the Settlement Agreement, but we believe that certainty of commencement of this rate reduction is a reasonable objective; it allows customers, especially large users, to plan their summer electric usage with some assurance of cost. Because we prefer a fixed commencement date for the rate reduction, but want to avoid the possibility of a large undercollection, we shall move the commencement date to August 1, but will consider altering this date if SCE is unable to meet the demands placed on it by this Commission in modifying the Settlement Agreement to create a specific tariff for public school facilities.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction also moved to intervene and that motion is granted. Changes in the settlement in accord with the comments of the SPI were made as described herein.

In accordance Pub. Util. Code § 311 and Rule 77 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, the alternate proposed decision is being mailed to parties on June 26, 2003, and comments are due on July 3, 2003, and reply comments are due on July 8, 2003, by noon (extra time being granted in observance of the July 4^th holiday).