Discussion and Conclusion The Commission declines to impose a new system for the elimination of executive incentive compensation costs. Applicants have represented that they have taken these costs out, and TURN does not point to any evidence to the contrary. The fact that Applicants use an incentive compensation loader to calculate one element of the overheads associated with the PSEP projects here does not lead to the conclusion that it includes incentive compensation for utility executives. Thus, the Commission does not see a reason at present to require SoCalGas and SDG&E to alter its practices for removing costs associated with executive incentive compensation costs. Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311, and comments are allowed pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were received on September 29, 2016 from SoCalGas and SDG&E, SCGC, ORA, and TURN and SCGC. Reply comments were received on October 4, 2016 from SoCalGas and SDG&E, and TURN. Changes have been made to the decision in response to some of the comments received where we believed the comments had merit. But one change that has not been made concerns the PSEP-specific insurance. SoCalGas and SDG&E claim that the deduction for PSEP-specific insurance in the amount of $2.181 million is too high as that figure includes costs for projects no longer in the application. But a review of the supporting
Discussion and Conclusion The Commission declines to impose a new system for the elimination of executive incentive compensation costs. Applicants have represented that they have taken these costs out, and TURN does not point to any evidence to the contrary. The fact that Applicants use an incentive compensation loader to calculate one element of the overheads associated with the PSEP projects here does not lead to the conclusion that it includes incentive compensation for utility executives. Thus, the Commission does not see a reason at present to require SoCalGas and SDG&E to alter its practices for removing costs associated with executive incentive compensation costs. Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311, and comments are allowed pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were received on September 29, 2016 from SoCalGas and SDG&E, SCGC, ORA, and TURN and SCGC. Reply comments were received on October 4, 2016 from SoCalGas and SDG&E, and TURN. Changes have been made to the decision in response to some of the comments received where we believed the comments had merit. But one change that has not been made concerns the PSEP-specific insurance. SoCalGas and SDG&E claim that the deduction for PSEP-specific insurance in the amount of $2.181 million is too high as that figure includes costs for projects no longer in the application. But a review of the supporting