more than any other non-utility party, had amassed the evidence, FOE presents no referred to above, that persuaded evidence of and Edison to concede a billion provides no link to dollars and settle. The FOE its substantial evidence was crucial in averting contribution. Such years of expensive litigation. did “preparation” FOE actually initiated settlement not influence the negotiations with one of the Commission’s utilities that owned San Onofre, decisionmaking namely, SDG&E, shortly after process and is not the OII was initiated. FOE compensable. continued to work behind the scenes to encourage such a settlement through most of 2013. FOE saw settlement of this case as the best path forward for ratepayers. Accordingly, FOE joined the Settling Parties to support the Settlement right after the settlement conference, actively supported the settlement FOE was not part in oral arguments before the of the Commission, and FOE is a four-party signatory to the Settlement and to settlement the various documents discussions. accompanying it. Pursuant to D.94-10-029, the Commission has discretion to award Well before the issues raised in compensation to the Investigation came on for parties who hearing, FOE was actively participated in preparing to make a compelling settlement case that SCE and SDG&E would agreements, when be required to expend billions of there is a finding dollars of funds in order to that they made a maintain San Onofre in operation substantial for the long term, as well as that contribution to a the alternatives to the energy that decision. We San Onofre had provided in the award limited hours past would result in overall lower for this costs to consumers than would participation. continued reliance on San Onofre. The fact that SCE ultimately
more than any other non-utility party, had amassed the evidence, referred to above, that persuaded Edison to concede a billion dollars and settle. The FOE evidence was crucial in averting years of expensive litigation. FOE actually initiated settlement negotiations with one of the utilities that owned San Onofre, namely, SDG&E, shortly after the OII was initiated. FOE continued to work behind the scenes to encourage such a settlement through most of 2013. FOE saw settlement of this case as the best path forward for ratepayers. Accordingly, FOE joined the Settling Parties to support the Settlement right after the settlement conference, actively supported the settlement in oral arguments before the Commission, and FOE is a signatory to the Settlement and to the various documents accompanying it. Well before the issues raised in the Investigation came on for hearing, FOE was actively preparing to make a compelling case that SCE and SDG&E would be required to expend billions of dollars of funds in order to maintain San Onofre in operation for the long term, as well as that the alternatives to the energy that San Onofre had provided in the past would result in overall lower costs to consumers than would continued reliance on San Onofre. The fact that SCE ultimately FOE presents no evidence of and provides no link to its substantial contribution. Such “preparation” did not influence the Commission’s decisionmaking process and is not compensable. FOE was not part of the four-party settlement discussions. Pursuant to D.94-10-029, the Commission has discretion to award compensation to parties who participated in settlement agreements, when there is a finding that they made a substantial contribution to a decision. We award limited hours for this participation.
172781805.docx