In a motion filed with the CPUC, UCAN and a number of other consumer groups argue that testimony filed by SDG&E and Sempra is purposefully vague, plagued with inconsistencies, and impossible to assess under the current General Rate Case time frame. The consumer groups call SDG&E and Sempra's approach to the rate case a "sham," and urge the CPUC to "reject [the current application] firmly and as quickly as possible."

Read the Introduction to the Motion below or read the entire motion here:

Pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the California Public Utilities Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Utility Consumer Action Network (UCAN), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet), Federal Executive Agencies (FEA)and California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) (referred to collectively as "Moving Parties")1 seek a ruling bifurcating a portion of the proceeding's revenue requirement phase. Specifically, Moving Parties seek to defer consideration of 2010 and later posttest year-related issues to a subsequent phase to be litigated in 2009. Moving Parties base this request upon their findings that the supplemental testimony served by San Diego Gas (referred to collectively as "Sempra Utilities") is purposefully vague, will be impossible to effectively assess within a time frame producing a decision by the end of 2007, and is plagued by inconsistencies with the "Utility of the Future" documents secured through discovery.

This is the second procedural motion since mid-May, 2007, addressing the recent disclosure of the "Utility of the Future" initiatives3 undertaken at San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)(referred to collectively as "Sempra Utilities"). The Sempra Utilities had been directed to serve supplemental testimony that would serve as something of a road map between the utilities' original testimony and the extensive initiatives and associated costs and benefits thereof. But the twenty volumes of testimony served on June 4, 2007, provided no such insight. Instead, it is a repetitive presentation of a few common themes:

• There was such uncertainty about the "Utility of the Future" initiatives at the time the GRC testimony was being put together, that it was appropriate to prepare cost and benefit forecasts that did not incorporate those initiatives. And, apparently, it made no sense to the utilities to mention those initiatives.

• While a substantial portion of the costs of implementing the "Utility of the Future" initiatives was included in the test year 2008 forecasts, there was no cause to separately identify those initiatives, because the funding was subsumed in the otherwise-applicable request. Again, it made no sense to the utilities to mention that the revenue requirement they proposed for 2008 would include funding for such initiatives.

• The utilities expect the vast majority of the benefits from the "Utility of the Future" initiatives to appear in 2009 and later years. Therefore, it was unnecessary to mention them when attempting to justify the requested revenue requirement for test year 2008. And though such post-test year benefits would clearly impact post-test year ratemaking, the Sempra Utilities saw no need to mention these greater opportunities for future cost savings in their application or original testimony. After all, some portion - likely less than half - of the savings might flow to ratepayers under a revenue sharing mechanism, should the Commission choose to adopt one. If the supplemental testimony is to be believed, it never dawned on the utility, it seems, that early disclosure of such additional opportunities for enhanced post-test year performance might be relevant to the discussion of establishing a reasonable approach to post-test year ratemaking.

Moving Parties submit that the Sempra Utilities have done a disservice to the Commission and its decision-making process with the posturing of the supplemental testimony. Simply put, there is no way to look at the documents from the "Utility of the Future" initiatives and come away with any conclusion other than this is a very serious undertaking by the utilities, with far-reaching implications for 2008 and beyond. The supplemental testimony's repeated claim that such a conclusion is inappropriate is nothing more than a denial of the obvious. It suggests that the Sempra Utilities purposefully endeavored to craft a general rate case (GRC) in which they could maximize the expected returns from a well-planned modernization effort by keeping it out of the GRC. And by withholding the relevant information until just before intervenor testimony is due and evidentiary hearings are to begin, Sempra has effectively precluded meaningful consideration of the impacts of this modernization effort under the current schedule. The Commission must act now or risk permitting the utilities to reap undeserved benefits by gaming the regulatory process.