Motion of Southern California Edison Company

January 21, 1997

Docket Clerk
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

RE: R.94-04-031/I.94-04-032

Dear Docket Clerk:

Enclosed for filing with the Commission are the original and five copies of the MOTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) FOR AN ALJ ORDER: (1) DIRECTING THAT SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWINGS BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES, AND (2) GRANTING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWINGS in the above-referenced proceeding.

We request that a copy of this document be file-stamped and returned for our records. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Your courtesy in this matter is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

James M. Lehrer

JML:JGM:DOCUMENT.02

Enclosures

cc: All Parties of Record

(U 338-E)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation	)))))	R.94-04-031 (Filed April 20, 1994)
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation	))))))	I.94-04-032 (Filed April 20, 1994)

MOTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) FOR AN ALJ ORDER: (1) DIRECTING THAT SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWINGS BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES, AND (2) GRANTING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWINGS

ANN P. COHN
JAMES M. LEHRER

Attorneys for
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue
Post Office Box 800
Rosemead, California 91770

Telephone: (818) 302-3252

Facsimile: (818) 302-1935

Dated: January 21, 1997

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation	)))))	R.94-04-031 (Filed April 20, 1994)
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation	))))))	I.94-04-032 (Filed April 20, 1994)

Southern California Edison Company ("Edison" or the "Company") hereby moves Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Steven A. Weissman for an order:

(1) directing that any party to this proceeding who makes a supplemental submission (either evidence, or argument, or both) to the Commission whether in response to a Commissioner's specific request or sua sponte or who submitted written materials to the Commission at the January 15 fullpanel hearing but did not provide copies for all the participants, serve that material on the other parties to this proceeding by a date certain, and

(2) granting parties one week from the date certain in which to rebut such supplemental submissions, and to respond to points raised in parties' December 20, 1996 Comments (to the extent that opportunity was not afforded within the context of the four questions posed in the December 23, 1996 ALJ Ruling).

In his December 23, 1996 ruling, ALJ Weissman convened an evidentiary hearing on ". . . whether or not it would be necessary to unbundle costs related to metering, billing, and other Revenue Cycle Costs in order to encourage direct access."/ Although the Commissioners and the ALJ directed questions to the participants in the January 15, 1997 fullpanel hearing, crossexamination was not permitted./ Although there was an attempt to permit limited oral rebuttal, it was clear that the Commission would have benefited from further discussion between the parties. As Commissioner Knight observed:

. . . it's unfortunate in some ways we are blackboxed here with the way we have approached we have to deal with this proceeding, because, in many ways, it would be just fascinating to hear the exchange between parties rather than as with the talkingheads approach here.

Moreover, to the extent the Commissioners encouraged parties to supplement their showings, or parties submitted materials which were not served on the other participants,/ it is obviously not possible to rebut (or, even review) those submissions before the Commission renders its decision on unbundling.

Edison is cognizant of the Commission's desire to move expeditiously toward a restructured electric industry. However, in so compressing presentation of evidence on this important policy issue, there is a real danger the Commission will render its decision on incomplete, erroneous, and misleading assertions of "fact."

Ordinarily, in Commission proceedings, the veracity of proffered evidence or lack thereof is determined through crossexamination by the parties. The Commissioners had neither the opportunity nor the practical ability to assess the evidence surfacing for the first time in the hearing room. This is in stark contrast to the usual procedure in which testimony is provided in advance, in writing, and parties are able to study it in preparation for hearings. Thus, the evidence adduced on January 15 is simply untested, and the Commission is unable to gauge the appropriate weight to be given that testimony./

Adding to the absence of an opportunity to crossexamine is the absence of an opportunity to rebut evidence presented on, and after, January 15. Although the ALJ did state an intent to allow parties ". . . to provide very, very brief rebuttal on those factual points after the completion of everybody else's statement. . . ,"/ insufficient hearing time and the very nature (i.e., quantitative, technical) of many of those "factual points" made effective rebuttal virtually impossible. As for supplemental submissions presented after the fullpanel hearing, there will be no opportunity whatsoever for rebuttal, absent an order establishing such opportunity.

Finally, although the December 23, 1996 ALJ Ruling invited written comments on four specific topics,/ no opportunity has been provided generally to respond to parties' December 20, 1996 Comments. Thus, marketers' assertion which are incorrect or misleading, but which don't have to do with one of the four topics, will go unchallenged in the record.

The Commission should not be denied the benefit of a brief, simple round of written rebuttal and response, especially in light of the fact that the Commission felt the need ". . . to create more of a factual foundation for the Commission's determination of the policy issues. . . ."/ Such an opportunity can be easily afforded with minimal impact on the Commission's schedule for deciding this issue.

First, to assure that all parties have an opportunity to review all evidence proffered to the Commission, the ALJ should issue an order directing any party presenting a supplemental submission of any kind/ to serve it on all other parties on or before January 27. Second, to assure that the Commission has a more fully developed factual basis upon which to render its decision, the ALJ should direct parties wishing to rebut other parties' submissions, including posthearing supplemental submissions, or to respond further to the December 20, 1996 Comments, to serve their rebuttal showings and responses on or before February 3.

The issue before the Commission will have substantial import for the electricity consumers of California and for the success of the Commission's restructuring efforts. It will also have a substantial impact on the regulated utilities within its jurisdiction. A decision of such magnitude should not be made with less than the best evidence obtainable under the circumstances. Edison believes that many of the "facts" alleged by the proponents of unbundling at the January 15 hearing are incorrect and misleading. However, we cannot challenge or rebut submissions we have not seen. Nor could we immediately rebut all the challengeable assertions expressed at the fullpanel hearing. To the extent evidence refuting such assertions can be gathered and presented in a reasonably short time, fairness demands that the Commission should be allowed to see it. The procedure outlined above will help assure that the Commission does not make a critical decision based on a seriously flawed record.

Respectfully submitted,

ANN P. COHN JAMES M. LEHRER

By: James M. Lehrer

Attorneys for
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

Telephone: (818) 302-3252

Facsimile: (818) 302-1935

Dated: January 21, 1997

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 MOTION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) FOR AN ALJ ORDER: (1) DIRECTING THAT SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWINGS BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES, AND (2) GRANTING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT SUPPLEMENTAL SHOWINGS on all parties identified on the attached service list. Service was effected by means indicated below:

Placing the copies in properly addressed sealed envelopes and depositing such envelopes in the United States mail with firstclass postage prepaid (Via First Class Mail);

Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the offices of each addressee (Via Courier);

Transmitting the copies via facsimile, modem, or other electronic means (Via Electronic Means).

Executed this 21st day of January, 1997, at Rosemead, California.

______________________________________________
Susan L. Quon
Case Administrator
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770