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

Alicia Barrett
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) SECOND 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 16, 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) SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (CPUC s or Commission s) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) respectfully submits this Second Motion to Strike Testimony. Specifically, SCE moves to strike portions of the Direct and Response testimony of the Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) and the entirety of the Rebuttal Testimony of the California Solar Energy Industries Association (CALSEIA). This testimony is 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, [and] discussion at the PHC, the Scoping Memo determined that only the following four issues are within the scope of this proceeding: Whether the Commission should approve 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 1

3 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 realtime pricing rate. (4) Consideration of eliminating the cap on SCE s Option R tariffs. 1 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 SBUA S DIRECT AND RESPONSE TESTIMONY ARE OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that Assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Roscow strike Sections II.D.3 and III.C of SBUA s Direct Testimony. 2 In these sections, SBUA asserts that SCE should take additional steps to address the impacts of the new TOU periods on California s efforts to promote clean energy. For example, SBUA states that SCE should launch a free SCE Small Business Energy Storage Pilot for small business customers who have invested in Distributed Generation (DG) and are not eligible for grandfathering; provide TOU Change Rebates to offset the costs of items identified in its proposed Small Business Energy Storage Pilot; expand the eligibility of small business customers to participate in the Self-Generation 1 Scoping Memo, p Because of file size issues, SBUA did not complete service to SCE of its Direct Testimony until June 2, 2017, after SCE s original Motion to Strike was filed and one week before SCE s Rebuttal Testimony was due. 2

4 Incentive Program (SGIP); and conduct a study to determine whether additional rate structures might also ensure continued DG and storage investment. These ratemaking and policy proposals are well outside the scope of this proceeding, and are not necessary for the determination of standard TOU periods for non-residential customers. SBUA seems to acknowledge this in part, when it states that [w]e appreciate that the development of such an alternative rate may well be beyond the scope of this RDW proceeding. 3 SBUA s proposals should be considered in other dockets. Similarly, parts of SBUA s Response Testimony are also outside the scope of this proceeding. Specifically, in the last three paragraphs of Section 4, SBUA advocates for proposals/programs that would provide mitigation measures to customers who are subject to the new TOU periods. For the same reasons that certain parties proposed mitigation measures are not appropriately within the scope of the proceeding as described in SCE s June 1, 2017 Motion to Strike, SBUA s are not either. Mitigation measures are rate design issues better evaluated in a GRC Phase 2, not in this RDW that is intended only to establish standard TOU periods. Indeed, it is only until after TOU periods are defined and rates initially determined that any potential impacts can be assessed, let alone mitigated. IV. THE ENTIRETY OF CALSEIA S REBUTTAL TESTIMONY IS OUT OF SCOPE AND SHOULD BE STRICKEN SCE respectfully requests that ALJ Roscow strike the entirety of CALSEIA s Rebuttal testimony. The crux of CALSEIA s testimony is that SCE should have included rate design proposals that are specifically designed to encourage customers to install energy storage systems. 4 Targeted, policy-oriented rate design is not within the scope of this proceeding; 3 SBUA Opening Testimony at p CALSEIA Rebuttal Testimony at p. 8. 3

5 rather, it is appropriately a GRC Phase 2 issue. Moreover, the majority of CALSEIA s rebuttal testimony focuses on an alleged need to create residential rates that incentivize energy storage. Residential rates and TOU periods are not in-scope for this proceeding, and in fact are squarely in scope in other proceedings (residential TOU rates are being addressed in R (Residential Rate OIR) and A (SCE s Default TOU Application). For non-residential customers, CALSEIA argues for optional rate design structures that include a wide differential between peak and off-peak rates. 5 The determination of optional rate design structures meant to benefit a narrow class of customers is not in-scope in this proceeding, which is intended only to determine the standard default TOU periods for all non-residential customers. CALSEIA should make its proposals in SCE s GRC Phase 2 (filing two weeks from today). V. 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 collaboratively 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. 5 Id. at p. 7. SCE notes that a very similar rate differential issue (brought by an energy storage company Transphase) was litigated (properly) in its 2009 GRC Phase 2 proceeding. 4

6 Respectfully submitted, FADIA R. KHOURY RUSSELL A. ARCHER June 16, 2017 /s/ Russell A. Archer By: Russell A. Archer Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626)

7 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) 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) SECOND 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 this 16 th day of June, 2017, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Susanna Martinez Susanna Martinez, Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

8 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 1 of 5 6/16/2017 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: A EDISON - FOR APPROVA FILER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: JUNE 1, 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 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94602

9 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 2 of 5 6/16/2017 SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION (SEIA) FOR: ENERGY PRODUCERS AND USERS COALITION 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 SMITH WYNNE 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 BRANDON SMITHWOOD MGR - CALIF STATE AFFAIRS BLAKE ELDER CLEAN ENERGY SPECIALIST

10 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 3 of 5 6/16/2017 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 RACHEL BIRD BARKOVICH & YAP, INC. DIR - POLICY & BUS. DEVELOPMENT, WEST PO BOX BORREGO SOLAR SYSTEMS, INC. OAKLAND, CA ND STREET, SUITE 600 OAKLAND, CA JIN NOH R. THOMAS BEACH SR. CONSULTANT PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT STRATEGEN CONSULTING CROSSBORDER ENERGY 2150 ALLSTON WAY, STE NINTH STREET, SUITE 213A

11 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 4 of 5 6/16/2017 BERKELEY, CA BERKELEY, CA FOR: SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION RICHARD MCCANN, PH.D CAMILLE STOUGH, ESQ. M. CUBED BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH PC 2655 PORTAGE BAY ROAD, SUITE L STREET, STE DAVIS, CA SACRAMENTO, CA I PEFFER ANDREW B. BROWN BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 915 L STREET, SUITE 1480 ELLISON SCHNEIDER & HARRIS LLP SACRAMENTO, CA CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400 FOR: CITY OF LANCASTER SACRAMENTO, CA ANN L. TROWBRIDGE ATTORNEY AT LAW DAY CARTER & MURPHY LLP 3620 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE, STE. 205 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

12 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 5 of 5 6/16/2017 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) 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