IX. Return to the Rate Case Processing Plan

The applications filed by SoCalGas and SDG&E were not subject to a preliminary review by ORA. For a general rate case, this typically involves the applicant filing a NOI, which is in effect a draft application. This was true for PG&E (A.02-11-017) and Edison, A.02-05-004. Under the rate case processing plan,⁴³ ORA must review the NOI and provide a timely list of requirements, "deficiencies," which the applicant addresses in order to file an acceptable application. This step was omitted under the procedure adopted by D.97-12-041. The lack of a NOI greatly hindered the timely and thorough review of the applicants' filings, leading to ORA and other intervenors spending too much time on discovery of data that should have been addressed in the applications and supporting work papers. Based upon our current experience in litigating these two proceedings we believe that the filing requirements for SoCalGas and SDG&E's subsequent change in authorized base electric and gas revenue requirements should revert to the extant rate case processing plan. The lack of the NOI process this time had the direct effect of increasing the difficulty for ORA and the other intervenors to justify through litigation their exceptions to the applications. The burden of proof lies fully on the applicants, notwithstanding the expertise of ORA and others to effectively critique and challenge the applicants' filing. See the extensive discussion of our policy in D.00-02-046 including this excerpt:

"Pursuant to Section 309.5, consumer interests are now represented by Commission staff dedicated to the goal of the lowest possible rates consistent with safe and reliable service. Consumer interests are also represented by effective consumer organizations which are experienced in the complexities of utility regulation and which, in some cases, are supported in part by a statutory plan of compensation of intervenors who contribute substantially to Commission's decisions. Still, even today, it is our experience that in comparison to other parties, utilities typically are better able, and have the greater incentive, to muster a large arsenal of resources to support their proposals." (D.00-02-046, mimeo., p. 35.)

Nothing about this requirement in anyway prejudges the nature of any likely incentive mechanism that may yet be adopted in Phase 2 of this proceeding.

TURN, in its opening litigation brief for SoCalGas, argued that the cost of service filings by SoCalGas and SDG&E are "the worst rate case(s)" experienced by its expert consultants, and that "a number of issues were omitted due to the (TURN) witnesses simply running out of time."⁴⁴ Without reaching that harsh a conclusion, the record as discussed throughout this decision, supports a prompt return to the rate case processing plan, with a thorough review at the NOI phase, to ensure the rates for SoCalGas and SDG&E are set at a fair and reasonable level, and to ensure that these proceedings can be litigated thoroughly and efficiently.

In the partial settlements, the parties agree that SoCalGas and SDG&E will file a NOI as a part of the next cost of service or GRC (General Rate Case) application, in a manner and on a schedule consistent with the provisions of the rate case plan adopted in D.89-01-040, as modified by the Commission."⁴⁵ We however are going further; and direct SoCalGas and SDG&E to file GRCs in compliance with D.89-01-040, as modified. We also direct that TURN and UCAN shall be allowed to review the NOI and may provide a list of deficiencies to ORA's project manager for possible inclusion in the NOI deficiencies notice in addition to those identified by ORA.⁴⁶

SoCalGas and SDG&E should file their applications in accordance with the rate case processing plan as modified here for a Test Year 2008, not 2009 as proposed.

⁴³ See D.89-01-040, 30 CPUC 2d 576, in R.87-11-012.

⁴⁴ See TURN opening litigation brief, at p. 4 and p. 1, respectively.

⁴⁵ SDG&E Settlement Agreement, p. 15.

⁴⁶ We do not need to separately modify the rate case processing plan in order to impose this additional requirement or provision on the next SoCalGas and SDG&E general rate cases. This is consistent with Conclusion of Law 1(c) and (d) in D.89-01-040:

"c. DRA's project manager should be the designated coordinator for transmitting NOI deficiencies. Utilities should be allowed to appeal DRA's list of deficiencies by filing a protest with the Executive Director. The Executive Director's determination should be final.

d. DRA's project manager should have primary responsibility for accepting changes to the utility's NOI filing. Utilities should be allowed to appeal DRA's determination by filing a formal motion for the acceptance of NOI changes." (DRA was a predecessor to ORA.)