1992 AGN DEC 15 I17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Client Letter November 20, 1992 Page 3 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 4. ER84-75: Cities filed a petition for review of FERC's Opinion 362 and 362-A raising issues as to the FERC's rulings regarding the appropriate method for determining demand allocation and rate of return. Remaining before the FERC is the yDouble Whammy" issue, i.e., whether some or all of the construction work in progress which Edison included in rate base should be excluded as to Cities on the basis that Cities were investing in their own resources and thus were not anticipated to benefit from Edison's investment in future resources. 5. ER86-271: There are no independent issues in this case, as the rates are based on the ER84-75 cost of service. 6. ER87-483: The settlement in this case (in 1987) provided that Edison would adjust the fuel clause in the event that the California Public Utility Commission made a finding of imprudence or unreasonableness of fuel related costs resulting from Edison's payments to affiliated Qualifying Facilities during certain periods. Edison and the CPUC Division of Ratepayer Advocates negotiated a settlement of the Affiliated QF issue. The Edison- DRA settlement does not track the provisions of the Cities-Edison ER87-483 settlement in that the CPUC settlement covered a broader period and provided both capacity and energy payments, as opposed to just energy as designated in the ER87-483 settlement. In order to resolve this matter, Edison offered to refund to the Cities their pro- rata share of the CPUC settlement, including both capacity and energy for the period included in the CPUC settlement. 7. FA85-67: As a result of a FERC Staff audit, Edison agreed to revise its fuel adjustment clause and make appropriate refunds. Edison has taken the position that it was entitled to adjust its base fuel costs (in addition to the costs recovered through the fuel adjustment clause) consistent with the Staff ordered changes to its fuel clause. As a result, it filed a compliance report claiming that Cities owed Edison $2,434,905 (plus accrued interest) for unrecovered fuel charges in Dockets ER82-427, ER84-75, and ER86-271. Cities have challenged Edison's proposed adjustment.