Decommissioning Cost Estimate as part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceedings. TURN opposed Edison’s proposed annual schedule for filing reasonableness reviews. TURN explained that the level of detail in the Decommissioning Cost Estimate is not sufficient to correlate individual line items with scope of work in activity plans, and actually requires the project-based milestone approach advocated by TURN. TURN argued that Edison admitted its intention to offset overages and underages for a project and to until it seeks “wait a reasonableness review to determine how to allocate expenditures amongst various line items.” We are persuaded by ORA that Edison’s annual reasonableness review proposal is not feasible, and by TURN that the information presented in an annual report will not necessarily be useful in discharging our duty to review decommissioning costs as required by Pub. Util. Code §§ 451 and 8327. As recommended by ORA, we that the logical proceeding for decommissioning cost review is the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceedings. We also recognize that the completion of major projects termed – by TURN also represents a logical point to review “milestones” – decommissioning costs. Because we are now just beginning the long journey that will be decommissioning SONGS Units 2 and 3, we find that setting a definite schedule for reasonableness is premature. Generally, we expect reasonableness review requests no less frequently than in each Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding. In this way, the reasonableness reviews will reflect a status report both in terms of amounts
Decommissioning Cost Estimate as part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceedings. TURN opposed Edison’s proposed annual schedule for filing reasonableness reviews. TURN explained that the level of detail in the Decommissioning Cost Estimate is not sufficient to correlate individual line items with scope of work in activity plans, and actually requires the project-based milestone approach advocated by TURN. TURN argued that Edison admitted its intention to offset overages and underages for a project and to “wait until it seeks a reasonableness review to determine how to allocate expenditures amongst various line items.” We are persuaded by ORA that Edison’s annual reasonableness review proposal is not feasible, and by TURN that the information presented in an annual report will not necessarily be useful in discharging our duty to review decommissioning costs as required by Pub. Util. Code §§ 451 and 8327. As recommended by ORA, we that the logical proceeding for decommissioning cost review is the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceedings. We also recognize that the completion of major projects – termed “milestones” by TURN – also represents a logical point to review decommissioning costs. Because we are now just beginning the long journey that will be decommissioning SONGS Units 2 and 3, we find that setting a definite schedule for reasonableness is premature. Generally, we expect reasonableness review requests no less frequently than in each Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding. In this way, the reasonableness reviews will reflect a status report both in terms of amounts