BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY"

Michael Hart
5 years ago
Views:

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of its 2016 Rate Design Window Proposals. Application No (Filed September 1, 2016) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY FADIA R. KHOURY RUSSELL A. ARCHER Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Russell.Archer@sce.com Dated: June 1, 2017

2 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of its 2016 Rate Design Window Proposals. Application No (Filed September 1, 2016) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) Rule of Practice and Procedure 11.1, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) respectfully submits this Motion to Strike Testimony. Specifically, SCE moves to strike portions of the testimony of the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association (AECA); Farm Bureau; Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA); the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA); and Castaic Lake Water Agency, Rancho California Water District, Renewable Energy Water Districts (collectively, Water Agencies) that are not appropriately within the scope of this proceeding. II. THE SCOPE OF THIS PROCEEDING IS NARROW AND DEFINED Assigned Commission Picker issued the Scoping Memo on March 21, After carefully considering SCE s application, parties protests, SCE s reply, PHC statements, discussion at the PHC, the Scoping Memo determined that only the following four issues are within the scope of this proceeding: 1

3 Whether the Commission should approving the following SCE proposals: (1) To revise SCE s standard time-of-use (TOU) periods and seasons, and implement the revised standard TOU periods for all non-residential customers on rate schedules with standard TOU periods; (2) To implement default critical peak pricing (CPP) for more than 500,000 small and medium commercial customers and 1,500 large agricultural customers, or adopt SCE s alternate proposal, which would make CPP optional for small commercial customers only; and (3) To revise SCE s real-time pricing rate. 1 (4) Consideration of eliminating the cap on SCE s Option R tariffs. 2 Thus, this proceeding is relatively narrow and limited, and its scope is defined. When proposed witness testimony is out of scope, it is appropriate to strike it. See R / , Joint Ruling of Administrative Law Judges Granting Motion to Strike, January 9, 2006, at 3-4 (granting motion to strike testimony that is outside of proceedings); R , ALJ s Ruling on Joint Utility Respondents Second Motion to Strike Testimony, September 28, 2001, at 3 (same). It is also important to note that SCE will file Phase 2 of its tri-annual General Rate Case (GRC) on June 30, 2017, which is designed to comprehensively address a broad range of rate design issues, including many of the ones that are subject to this Motion to Strike. III. PORTIONS OF AECA S TESTIMONY ARE OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that Assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Roscow strike Section 2.2 of AECA s testimony. This section focuses solely on the potential development of TOU-based distribution rates and advocates for daily demand charges. These rate design elements are not within the four-issue scope of this proceeding. Indeed, AECA itself 1 Scoping Memo, p Id. 2

4 acknowledges that time-variant pricing and other rate designs should be addressed together, in one proceeding, the GRC. 3 The only TOU-related issues in scope here are whether to adopt SCE s proposed new TOU periods. Similarly, AECA s Section (urging the Commission to require SCE to adopt a location-specific pricing proposal) should be stricken as rate design and pricing issues are not within the scope of this proceeding. Finally, Sections 2.3 and 2.4 (advocating grandfathering proposals) should be stricken as the Commission has already determined in D that TOU grandfathering implementation issues will be considered in SCE s 2018 GRC Phase 2. IV. PORTIONS OF FARM BUREAU S TESTIMONY ARE OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that ALJ Roscow strike Section IV of Farm Bureau s testimony. The Section, titled Proposed Agricultural Rate Design, advocates for agriculturalspecific rate design options if the Commission adopt SCE s TOU period proposals. Those proposals are outside the scope of this proceeding and appropriately addressed in SCE s upcoming 2018 GRC Phase 2. V. PORTIONS OF SEIA S TESTIMONY ARE OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that ALJ Roscow strike the portion of Answer 23 of SEIA s testimony that relates to SEIA s preferred alternative to SCE s proposed winter super-off-peak TOU period. SEIA s preferred alternative is to have an optional, more targeted Discount Days demand response program in the middle of certain days when prices are expected to be 3 AECA Testimony at 3. 3

5 low in order to encourage electricity use. SEIA notes that this is similar to SCE s matinee pricing pilot. 4 SEIA also notes its concern that moving to much broader use of discount pricing, without testing such concepts in a variety of pilot programs with different structures, would be ill-advised. 5 Optional demand response-related rate design pilots are not within the scope of this proceeding. In addition, in the Proposed Decision granting SCE s Petition for Modification to eliminate its matinee pricing proposed pilot, the Commission recognized that SCE s broad-based real-time pricing proposal pending in this proceeding eliminates the utility of narrow opt-in pilot programs. 6 SEIA s testimony in Answer 32 should also be stricken. There, SEIA argues that the TOU summer season should be extended to six months, and that the Commission should mitigate[] bill volatility in hot inland regions by moving to monthly baseline allowances for customers in these climate zones/baseline territories. 7 Baseline allowances are applicable only to residential customers; the scope of this proceeding is limited to setting base TOU periods for non-residential customers. Further, baseline allowances are a rate design issue appropriately examined in a GRC Phase 2 and SEIA explicitly acknowledges that setting new baseline quantities is not within the scope of this case. 8 SEIA s testimony in Answers should also be stricken. In those answers, SEIA argues for specific rate designs for grandfathering for non-residential solar customers. That is outside the scope of this proceeding. In D , the Commission specified that specific rate designs relating to the grandfathering provisions decided in that proceeding would be addressed in GRC Phase 2s. 9 4 SEIA Testimony at Id. at FN See May 12, 2017, Proposed Decision Granting Southern California Edison Company s Petition for Modification of Decision in R SEIA Testimony at Id. at Although SEIA claims that [t]he Commission should adopt this concept on a policy basis in this case, with the resulting rates implemented as necessary in SCE s upcoming Phase 2 case (SEIA Continued on the next page 4

6 VI. PORTIONS OF ORA S TESTIMONY ARE OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that ALJ Roscow strike lines 1-6 on page 16 of ORA s testimony. In that testimony, ORA recommends that SCE should consider offering balanced payment plans to [smaller non-residential customers] in order to mitigate potential ratepayer frustration with the TOU period shift. 10 Balanced payment plans, which are akin to SCE s Level Payment Plan offering, are more appropriately vetted in SCE s 2018 GRC Phase 2 proceeding as they are rate design issues not within the scope of this proceeding. VII. THE ENTIRETY OF THE WATER AGENCIES TESTIMONY IS OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that ALJ Roscow strike the entirety of the Water Agencies testimony. All of this testimony relates to proposed grandfathering protections and an additional mitigation measure for Renewable Energy Self Generation Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT) customers. Regarding Water Agencies grandfathering proposal, as discussed above, the Commission has determined that TOU grandfathering implementation issues will be considered in SCE s 2018 GRC Phase 2. Regarding Water Agencies other proposed mitigation measure (i.e., lump sum indifference payments), that is also a rate design issue that is also appropriately considered in a GRC Phase 2 (e.g., as it is in SDG&E s pending GRC Phase 2) 11 and not in this proceeding. Continued from the previous page Testimony at 36); the specific detailed rate design elements SEIA proposes are the exact kind of issues the Commission reserved for Phase 2 in D ORA Testimony at See A , Proposed Decision dated May 18, 2017, pp

7 None of Water Agencies testimony is in scope in this proceeding and should therefore be stricken. VIII. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, SCE respectfully requests that the portions of witness testimony identified above be stricken. While SCE requests the specified testimony above be struck from the record in this proceeding, it should be noted that SCE has a very good record of working with parties on rate issues through its GRC Phase 2 negotiation process. Since SCE is scheduled to file its next 2018 GRC Phase 2 on June 30, 2017, any issues identified as being in scope in that proceeding will be considered in the very near future. Respectfully submitted, FADIA R. KHOURY RUSSELL A. ARCHER June 1, 2017 /s/ Russell Archer By: Russell Archer Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) Russell.Archer@sce.com 6

8 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of its 2016 Rate Design Window Proposals. ) ) ) ) A (Filed September 1, 2016) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S (U 338-E) MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY on all parties identified on the attached service list(s) A Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: Transmitting the copies via to all parties who have provided an address. Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by hand or by overnight courier to the offices of the Commissioner(s) or other addressee(s). ALJ Stephen C. Roscow CPUC 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA Executed on June 1, 2017, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Edith Leon Edith Leon Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

9 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 1 of 4 6/1/2017 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: A EDISON - FOR APPROVA FILER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: MAY 9, 2017 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties HOWARD M, CRYSTAL RUSSELL A. ARCHER ATTORNEY AT LAW SR. ATTORNEY LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD CRYSTAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 813 A STREET, N.E WALNUT GROVE AVE. / PO BOX 800 WASHINGTON, DC ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SBUA) NICHOLAS SHER ROBERT FINKELSTEIN GENERAL COUNSEL LEGAL DIVISION THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK ROOM MARKET ST., STE VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: TURN FOR: ORA NORA E. SHERIFF EDWARD G. POOLE ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP ATTORNEY 345 CALIFORNIA ST., STE ANDERSON & POOLE SAN FRANCISCO, CA CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1300 FOR: CALIFORNIA LARGE ENERGY CONSUMERS SAN FRANCISCO, CA ASSOCIATION FOR: WESTERN MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION JEANNE B. ARMSTRONG KATY MORSONY ATTORNEY ALCANTAR & KAHL GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP 345 CALIFORNIA STREET, STE. 2450

10 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 2 of 4 6/1/ SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: ENERGY PRODUCERS AND USERS FOR: SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES COALITION ASSOCIATION (SEIA) JOSE E. GUZMAN, JR. BRAD HEAVNER ATTORNEY AT LAW POLICY DIR. GUZMAN LAW OFFICES CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSN. 288 THIRD STREET, SUITE 306 ONLY OAKLAND, CA ONLY, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS FOR: CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ROUNDTABLE AND CALIFORNIA SMALL ASSOCIATION BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (CSBA/CSBRT) LON W. HOUSE, PH.D CAROLYN M. KEHREIN WATER AND ENERGY CONSULTING CONSULTANT 2795 EAST BIDWELL, STE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOLSOM, CA CELEBRATION WAY FOR: RENEWABLE ENERGY WATER DISTRICTS: WOODLAND, CA CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY, EASTERN FOR: ENERGY USERS FORUM (EUF) MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT MICHAEL BOCCADORO SCOTT BLAISING PRESIDENT COUNSEL WEST COAST ADVISORS BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH P.C. 925 L STREET, SUITE L STREET, SUITE 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA FOR: AGRICULTURAL ENERGY CONSUMERS FOR: CITY OF LANCASTER ASSOCIATION RONALD LIEBERT KAREN NORENE MILLS ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, STE RIVER PLAZA DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS & FOR: CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION Information Only BARBARA R. BARKOVICH DIANE I. FELLMAN CONSULTANT VP - WEST, GOV'T AFFAIRS BARKOVICH & YAP, INC. NRG ONLY ONLY ONLY, CA ONLY, CA MIKE CADE MRW & ASSOCIATES LLC INDUSTRY SPECIALIST ONLY ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP ONLY, CA ONLY ONLY, OR 00000

11 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 3 of 4 6/1/2017 BRANDON SMITHWOOD BLAKE ELDER MGR - CALIF STATE AFFAIRS CLEAN ENERGY SPECIALIST SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION EQ RESEARCH TH STREET, NW, SUITE HARRISON OAKS BLVD., STE. 100 WASHINGTON, DC CARY, NC LON W. HOUSE, PH.D DANIEL DOUGLASS WATER AND ENERGY CONSULTING ATTORNEY N. ORACLE RD., STE DOUGLASS & LIDDELL ORO VALLEY, AZ PARK GRANADA, SUITE 209 CALABASAS, CA CASE ADMINISTRATION STEVEN C. NELSON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ATTORNEY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX 800 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY ROSEMEAD, CA TH AVE., 9TH FL. SAN DIEGO, CA DONALD C. LIDDELL WILL FULLER ATTORNEY CALIF. & FED. REGULATORY AFFAIRS DOUGLASS & LIDDELL SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ND AVENUE 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP31F SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO, CA SUE MARA MARCEL HAWIGER RTO ADVISORS L.L.C. STAFF ATTORNEY 164 SPRINGDALE WAY THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK REDWOOD CITY, CA MARKET ST., STE SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK (TURN) JAMES BIRKELUND FRANCESCA WAHL PRESIDENT SR. ASSOCIATE, BUS. DEVELOPMENT SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES TESLA 548 MARKET STREET, SUITE DE HARO STREET, STE. 101 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA MARC KOLB TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON SOLARCITY ATTORNEY 444 DE HARO STREET, SUITE 100 TAS STRATEGIES SAN FRANCISCO, CA PINE STREET, SUITE 1250 SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE AND CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS ASSOC. CATHERINE E. YAP BARKOVICH & YAP, INC. PO BOX OAKLAND, CA JIN NOH SR. CONSULTANT STRATEGEN CONSULTING 2150 ALLSTON WAY, STE.210 BERKELEY, CA R. THOMAS BEACH RICHARD MCCANN, PH.D PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT M. CUBED

12 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 4 of 4 6/1/2017 CROSSBORDER ENERGY 2655 PORTAGE BAY ROAD, SUITE NINTH STREET, SUITE 213A DAVIS, CA BERKELEY, CA FOR: SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION CAMILLE STOUGH, ESQ. I PEFFER BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH PC BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. 915 L STREET, STE L STREET, SUITE 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA FOR: CITY OF LANCASTER ANDREW B. BROWN ANN L. TROWBRIDGE ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW ELLISON SCHNEIDER & HARRIS LLP DAY CARTER & MURPHY LLP 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE AMERICAN RIVER DR., STE. 205 SACRAMENTO, CA SACRAMENTO, CA State Service ERIC DURAN JUSTIN H. FONG ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ROOM 4011 AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA LEE-WHEI TAN MATTHEW A. KARLE ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ELECTRICITY PRICING AND CUSTOMER PROGRAM ROOM 4102 ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA RAJAN MUTIALU ROBERT LEVIN POLICY & PLANNING DIVISION ENERGY DIVISION AREA 4-A ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA STEPHEN C. ROSCOW DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of its 2016 Rate Design Window Proposals. Application No. 16-09-003