Law - #1398572

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of the League of California Cities for Rehearing of Resolution E-4101

)))

Application 07-08-020 (Filed August 15, 2007)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

JENNIFER TSAO SHIGEKAWA MARICRUZ PRADO

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-6943 Facsimile: (626) 302-6693 E-mail:Maricruz.Prado@sce.com

Dated: August 30, 2007

Law - #1398572 - 1 -

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of the League of California Cities for Rehearing of Resolution E-4101

)))

Application 07-08-020 (Filed August 15, 2007)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

I.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Rule 16.1(d) of the California Public Utilities Commission’s (Commission)

Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) respectfully

submits this Response to the League of California Cities’ (League) Application for Rehearing

filed on August 15, 2007. The League filed the Application for Rehearing in response to the

Commission’s Resolution E-4101 (Resolution), dated July 12, 2007, which denied SCE’s request

for deviation from Electric Rule 20A, Allocation Allowances, in compliance with Resolution

4001. SCE, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company filed

joint comments on the draft Resolution on June 25, 2007 (Joint Comments), a copy of which is

attached hereto as Appendix A and incorporated herein by this reference. SCE filed reply

comments on the draft Resolution on June 29, 2007 (Reply Comments), a copy of which is

attached hereto as Appendix B and incorporated herein by this reference.

Law - #1398572 - 2 -

II.

DISCUSSION

SCE fully supports the League’s Application for Rehearing for the reasons set forth in the

Joint Comments and the Reply Comments. In addition, the League’s arguments, as set forth in

its Application for Rehearing, are persuasive as they highlight the Resolution’s many infirmities.

In particular, the League points to one of the most glaring defects contained in the Resolution -

the fact that affected cities were not given adequate opportunity to comment on the draft

Resolution.

The Resolution, without proper basis, targets 43 communities listed in Exhibit A to the

Resolution and assigns SCE the undesirable task of coming up with criteria to determine which

communities have demonstrated no intent to use their Rule 20A allocations. Even with Exhibit

A as a guide,1 it is very difficult to assess which communities should be deemed “inactive” as

defined in the Resolution. As the Application for Rehearing argues, a community may unfairly

be classified as “inactive” simply because it has not adopted an undergrounding ordinance or

completed a project since 1999. These two criteria ignore the fact that while the community may

appear to be inactive, that is because it is patiently waiting to accumulate enough Rule 20A

allocations to commence a viable project. It would make no sense for such community to

communicate with SCE about a potential Rule 20A project when such discussions would be

years premature. In addition, communities generally adopt an undergrounding ordinance only

when they have sufficient project details, such as actual start dates. General ordinances with no

specifics are of no practical use and, as such, are not commonly adopted by communities. Thus,

if the appearance of inactivity or disinterest are to be the criteria for this forfeiture, the mere fact

that a community has not completed a project since 1999 or has not adopted an undegrounding

ordinance is not indicative of a community’s lack of intent to pursue a Rule 20A project.

1 The Resolution directs SCE to use Exhibit “A” as a guide; as SCE interprets the Resolution, the final list of impacted local governments will differ.

Law - #1398572 - 3 -

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, SCE supports the League’s Application for Rehearing and

respectfully requests that the Commission rescind the Resolution and adopt a resolution

approving SCE’s deviation request in Advice Letter 2110-E filed on March 15, 2007.

Respectfully submitted, JENNIFER TSAO SHIGEKAWA MARICRUZ PRADO

/s/ Maricruz Prado By: Maricruz Prado

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-6943 Facsimile: (626) 302-6693 E-mail:Maricruz.Prado@sce.com

August 30, 2007

APPENDIX A

(Joint Comments dated June 25, 2007)

APPENDIX B

(Reply Comments dated June 29, 2007)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I

have this day served a true copy of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S

RESPONSE TO THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' APPLICATION FOR

REHEARING on all parties identified on the attached service list(s). Service was effected by

one or more means indicated below:

Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail address.

First class mail will be used if electronic service cannot be effectuated.

Executed this 30th day of August, 2007, at Rosemead, California.

/s/ Meraj Rizvi Meraj Rizvi Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

A.07-08-020 Thursday, August 30, 2007

Page 1 of 1

CASE ADMINISTRATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 A.07-08-020

JOHN P. HUGHES MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 601 VAN NESS AVENUE, STE. 2040 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 A.07-08-020

AKBAR JAZAYEIRI SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. ROOM 390 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 A.07-08-020

HAROLD McCARTHY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 A.07-08-020

MARICRUZ PRADO ATTORNEY AT LAW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 A.07-08-020

PATRICK WHITNELL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 1400 K STREET 4TH FLOOR SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 UNITED STATES A.07-08-020

RANDOLPH WU General Counsel CPUC 505 Van Ness Ave Legal Division San Francisco, Ca 94102-3214 A.07-08-020

JAMES YEE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 A.07-08-020