to the Settlement Agreement, SCE would use that Commission-adopted methodology in lieu of the methodology in Appendix A to calculate the discount for new load of Maritime Entities.” (Settlement Agreement, Section 4.f., at 11-12.) SCE’s last adopted EDR expired on December 31, 2012, without extension. No new proposal is pending before the Commission and there is nothing in the record to indicate if SCE has any intention of applying to establish a new EDR during the term of the Settlement Agreement. This provision would allow SCE to grant an even lower discount (more advantageous to Maritime Entities) than that provided in the Settlement Agreement without an EDR in existence, criteria for approval or oversight by the Commission. In essence, the Settling Parties are asking for pre-approval of an automatic, but undefined, substitute discount methodology that does not now exist and therefore is wholly outside the record in this proceeding. As such, it is unreasonable, unsupported by the record and not shown to be in the public interest. Therefore, the Settlement Provision included in Section 4.f at 11-12 and the request for its approval in Section 4.n.6 should be approved. This decision does not preclude a future Petition for Modification seeking a change to today’s adopted settlement rates should another EDR program be adopted in SCE’s service territory for which the Maritime Entities can successfully demonstrate eligibility on the same basis that all other potential EDR participants will face. Absent the provision “substitute discount” discussed above, the Settlement Agreement is Reasonable, Consistent with Law and the Public Interest We address, separately, the first two requirements of all-party settlements and then follow with a discussion of the remaining two requirements as part of a broader assessment of the legal and policy merits of the settlement consistent
to the Settlement Agreement, SCE would use that Commission-adopted methodology in lieu of the methodology in Appendix A to calculate the discount for new load of Maritime Entities.” (Settlement Agreement, Section 4.f., at 11-12.) SCE’s last adopted EDR expired on December 31, 2012, without extension. No new proposal is pending before the Commission and there is nothing in the record to indicate if SCE has any intention of applying to establish a new EDR during the term of the Settlement Agreement. This provision would allow SCE to grant an even lower discount (more advantageous to Maritime Entities) than that provided in the Settlement Agreement without an EDR in existence, criteria for approval or oversight by the Commission. In essence, the Settling Parties are asking for pre-approval of an automatic, but undefined, substitute discount methodology that does not now exist and therefore is wholly outside the record in this proceeding. As such, it is unreasonable, unsupported by the record and not shown to be in the public interest. Therefore, the Settlement Provision included in Section 4.f at 11-12 and the request for its approval in Section 4.n.6 should be approved. This decision does not preclude a future Petition for Modification seeking a change to today’s adopted settlement rates should another EDR program be adopted in SCE’s service territory for which the Maritime Entities can successfully demonstrate eligibility on the same basis that all other potential EDR participants will face. Absent the “substitute discount” provision discussed above, the Settlement Agreement is Reasonable, Consistent with Law and the Public Interest We address, separately, the first two requirements of all-party settlements and then follow with a discussion of the remaining two requirements as part of a broader assessment of the legal and policy merits of the settlement consistent
89019480.docx