III. Motions

A. IEP's Motion for Un-Redacted Copy of Application

On July 21, 2003, Edison filed this application along with a motion to file the un-redacted versions of the application, testimony, and workpapers under seal. This instant application concerns a discrete issue: should the Commission authorize Edison to purchase Mountainview. Simultaneously the Commission is processing a Rulemaking (R.) 01-10-024 to Establish Policies and Cost Recovery Mechanisms for Generation Procurement and Renewable Resource Development (Procurement) for all the California electric utilities. In that proceeding there is a protective order, an order that was crafted after much litigation and participation of the parties. In that Rulemaking, certain participants, designated as Market Participating Parties (MPP) are not granted access to the protected materials.

On August 1, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the Mountainview proceeding issued a ruling adopting the protective order from R.01-10-024 as the protective order for this Mountainview application proceeding.

On August 19, 2003, IEP filed a motion for an order compelling production of an un-redacted copy of the application, testimony, and workpapers. The gravamen of the motion was that IEP was denied access to the documents filed under seal by Edison, and that denial disabled IEP from making a fully informed assessment of the application. Without access to the un-redacted documents IEP anticipated that it could not participate in a meaningful way in this proceeding.

Edison opposed the motion claiming that IEP was clearly a MPP, and since IEP was prohibited from reviewing the un-redacted documents in the procurement proceeding, and the confidentiality orders in that proceeding and the Mountainview were identical, IEP should be excluded from the confidential documents in this proceeding. In addition, Edison's Mountainview application included two categories of confidential data: (1) Edison's confidential information concerning its future resource needs; and (2) Sequoia's confidential cost data. There was concern on the part of Edison and Sequoia that the cost data should not be released under any circumstances as it was not germane to whether Mountainview should be authorized or not, and release of the data could compromise the competitive electricity generation market. Opposition was also received from Sequoia and San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

The conundrum IEP's motion created was whether a modification of the protective order in the Mountainview proceeding would undermine the protective order in the procurement proceeding. Both proceedings involved the future resource needs of Edison, and the Mountainview project could have been included in the procurement proceeding, but for the truncated schedule afforded because of the expiration date of the option agreement (February 29, 2004). The Commission determined that Mountainview should not be consolidated into the procurement rulemaking so that Mountainview could proceed on its own schedule. Therefore, there was concern that if the confidentiality agreement was modified in this proceeding for a MPP, it could open the floodgates for other MPP in the procurement proceeding. This bifurcation of a significant procurement component from the procurement proceeding highlights the procedural snafus that develop when this Commission does not analyze procurement in a comprehensive or integrated manner.

We reluctantly deny IEP's motion though the Commission intends to open its review process to further public scrutiny and is taking steps to do so in the Procurement proceeding. IEP was a very involved and effective participant in the proceeding, asking probing questions on cross-examination, producing valuable testimony, and filing a post-hearing brief that was helpful to the Commission in drafting this decision. Despite the handicap of the protective order, IEP did effectively participate.

B. Motion of The Utility Reform Network for Acceptance of Late-filed Notice of Intent to Claim Compensation

On October 10, 2003, TURN filed a motion for acceptance of a late-filed Notice of Intent (NOI) to claim compensation. No opposition being filed, and seeing no harm or prejudice to any party, TURN's motion for acceptance of late-filed NOI is granted.

C. Motion of the Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. and the Elsinor Valley Municipal Water District to Intervene as a Party and Submit Comments

On November 6, 2003, the Nevada Hydro Company, Inc. and the Elsinor Valley Municipal Water District (TNHC) filed a motion to intervene and to file comments. On November 14, 2003, Edison filed a response opposing the motion.

Edison responded to the TNHS motion and urged the Commission to deny TNHS party status in the proceeding since their proposed entry is "woefully late," coming after hearings are concluded, issues fully briefed, and the matter submitted. Edison states that TNHC presents no explanation for the late entry, and fails to comply with the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure on motions for intervention. In addition, Edison asserts, to accept TNHC's comments would require reopening the record and this case is on an expedited schedule that does not allow for reopening the record. And finally, Edison argues that TNHC is only advancing its own pecuniary interest by advertising its project.

We disagree that the comments would require a reopening of the record. Given the fast track upon which this proceeding has advanced, outside the comprehensive procurement proceeding, it is understandable that parties which do not make a full-time occupation of participating before the Commission may file late. This Commission should welcome alternate points of view, especially when the party goes to the considerable effort and expense of navigating the Commission's processes in an effort to make its voice heard. To develop as robust a record as possible given the extremely truncated process we have employed here, we accept TNHC's motion for party status and its comments filed thereto.

TNHC are developing the Lake Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage (LEAPS) and Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500-kV Interconnect (TE/VS) projects. TNHC suggests that these projects are ideally suited to helping Edison meet its stated goals, but Edison failed to consider the TE/VS projects instead of acquiring another gas-fired generator. TNHC seeks to intervene in this proceeding to bring these deficiencies to the Commission's attention.

TNHC advances that the LEAPS and the TE/VS Interconnect projects would allow the grid manager and Edison to better manage their resources and facilitate the use of renewable energy from geothermal and wind resources in the region. TNHC suggests that its projects could contribute to Edison's portfolio, potentially at a cost lower than that of Mountainview, and TNHC urges this Commission to require Edison to evaluate these projects before committing to Mountainview.

And finally, TNHC argues that since Edison articulated that it needs additional generation resources to meet its customers' likely peak demand, Edison should consider using the LEAPS and TE/VS projects for its peaking needs. TNHC believes pumped hydro storage projects are uniquely suited for generating power during periods of high demand and for supplying reserve capacity to complement the output of large base load plants.

The motion of TNHC is granted and its position was considered in reviewing this matter. We decline to adopt their proposal in accepting the Mountainview project herein due to the many unique benefits offered by Mountainview as described in more detail herein.