Parties). The proposed settlement addresses the costs incurred by PG&E for its license renewal activities, and recommended that PG&E be granted $18.6 million in rate recovery. (May 23, 2017 Joint Settlement Motion at 13, 15.) The motion explained the basis for this number: In approaching settlement on this issue, the Settling Parties desired to identify a set of principles upon which to base that settlement. One principle was that PG&E should recover its direct costs incurred during the time that the project was reasonably and prudently undertaken. In this regard, the Settling Parties agreed, for the purpose of compromise and without conceding their litigation positions, that the Commission should consider the project reasonably and prudently undertaken from its inception in 2009 until April 10, 2011, when PG&E requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating licenses. [fn. omitted] The Settling Parties then agreed that PG&E should not recover the direct costs incurred subsequent to that deferral request. After reviewing the costs of the project as summarized in Exhibit PG&E2, as corrected in Attachment 2 to this Motion, the Settling Parties submit that $18.6 million is a reasonable approximation of the direct costs incurred between the project inception and April 10, 2011 that should be authorized for recovery. Finally, the Settling Parties agreed that no AFUDC should be recovered for the License Renewal Project as a reasonable sharing of risk between customers and shareholders. (Id. at 1213.) The parties opposing PG&E’s original request support the settlement. The $18.6 million figure is supported by the record, is well within the range of possible litigation outcomes in this proceeding, and provides significant ratepayer saving compared to PG&E’s original request of more than $52 million. It was reasonable for PG&E to have spent that amount of money in 2009 to 2011
Parties). The proposed settlement addresses the costs incurred by PG&E for its license renewal activities, and recommended that PG&E be granted $18.6 million in rate recovery. (May 23, 2017 Joint Settlement Motion at 13, 15.) The motion explained the basis for this number: In approaching settlement on this issue, the Settling Parties desired to identify a set of principles upon which to base that settlement. One principle was that PG&E should recover its direct costs incurred during the time that the project was reasonably and prudently undertaken. In this regard, the Settling Parties agreed, for the purpose of compromise and without conceding their litigation positions, that the Commission should consider the project reasonably and prudently undertaken from its inception in 2009 until April 10, 2011, when PG&E requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) defer issuance of the Diablo Canyon renewed operating licenses. [fn. omitted] The Settling Parties then agreed that PG&E should not recover the direct costs incurred subsequent to that deferral request. After reviewing the costs of the project as summarized in Exhibit PG&E2, as corrected in Attachment 2 to this Motion, the Settling Parties submit that $18.6 million is a reasonable approximation of the direct costs incurred between the project inception and April 10, 2011 that should be authorized for recovery. Finally, the Settling Parties agreed that no AFUDC should be recovered for the License Renewal Project as a reasonable sharing of risk between customers and shareholders. (Id. at 1213.) The parties opposing PG&E’s original request support the settlement. The $18.6 million figure is supported by the record, is well within the range of possible litigation outcomes in this proceeding, and provides significant ratepayer saving compared to PG&E’s original request of more than $52 million. It was reasonable for PG&E to have spent that amount of money in 2009 to 2011