BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E For Applying the Market Index Formula And As-Available Capacity Prices Adopted In D to Calculate Short-Run Avoided Cost For Payments to Qualifying Facilities Beginning July 2003 And Associated Relief A. APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E FOR APPLYING PRICES ADOPTED IN D TO CALCULATE SHORT-RUN AVOIDED COST FOR PAYMENTS TO QUALIFYING FACILITIES BEGINNING JULY 2003 MICHAEL D. MONTOYA CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Carol Dated: November 4,

2 APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E FOR APPLYING PRICES ADOPTED IN D TO CALCULATE SHORT-RUN AVOIDED COST FOR PAYMENTS TO QUALIFYING FACILITIES BEGINNING JULY 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. III. SUMMARY OF REQUEST...2 THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADJUST SCE S QF PAYMENTS DURING THE PERIOD JULY 2003 THROUGH JULY A. PURPA Limits Payments To QFs To SCE s Avoided Costs...3 B. The California Court of Appeals Requires The Commission To Assure Customers Do Not Pay More Than SCE s Avoided Costs For QF Power...4 C. Beginning In July 2003, There Was A Recognized Misalignment Between Avoided Costs And QF Payments...6 D. The Commission Should Correct The Longstanding and Recognized Misalignment Between Actual QF Payments and Avoided Cost...7 IV. SCE S CUSTOMERS PAID $50 MILLION MORE THAN D WOULD ALLOW DURING THE IDENTIFIED PERIOD...8 V. SCE RECOMMENDS RECOVERY FROM QFS OVER THE SHORTER OF THEIR REMAINING CONTRACT PERIODS OR TWO YEARS...9 VI. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...10 A. Statutory and Procedural Authority...10 B. Proposed Categorization, Need For Hearings, Issues To Be Considered, Proposed Schedule - Rule Proposed Categorization Need For Hearings and Proposed Schedule For Resolution Of Issues Issues To be Considered...12 C. Legal Name And Correspondence...13 D. Articles of Incorporation Rule i

3 APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E FOR APPLYING PRICES ADOPTED IN D TO CALCULATE SHORT-RUN AVOIDED COST FOR PAYMENTS TO QUALIFYING FACILITIES BEGINNING JULY 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED Section E. Service List...14 Page VII. CONCLUSION...14 ii

4 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E For Applying the Market Index Formula And As-Available Capacity Prices Adopted In D to Calculate Short-Run Avoided Cost For Payments to Qualifying Facilities Beginning July 2003 And Associated Relief A. APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E FOR APPLYING PRICES ADOPTED IN D TO CALCULATE SHORT-RUN AVOIDED COST FOR PAYMENTS TO QUALIFYING FACILITIES BEGINNING JULY 2003 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission Decision No. (D dated July 31, 2008, Ordering Paragraph No. 1(f, Southern California Edison Company (SCE hereby requests application of the Market Index Formula (MIF and asavailable capacity prices adopted in D and affirmed in D to calculate Short-Run Avoided Costs (SRAC payments to Qualifying Facilities (QFs between July 2003 and July SCE chooses to end the true-up period in July 2008 because it does not have 1 Should a party believe that retroactive review is necessary to ensure compliance with PURPA, it should file an application. The application must provide both the time period for which it believes retroactive adjustment is warranted, and evidence demonstrating that the IOU s method is more accurate than the method the Commission has already reviewed and adopted for determining avoided costs for that particular time period. For any periods already in the past, the IOUs will have until November 4, 2008, to file an application. Going forward, the IOUs will have 2 years from the beginning of any alleged period of overpayment to file an application. These are reasonable time limitations, given our legitimate concerns about Commission resources and the need for regulatory certainty for both QFs and IOUs. D , Ordering Paragraph 1(f, pp

5 sufficient information about QF payments after that date. Once the CPUC implements the QF pricing adopted in D , SCE will seek additional adjustment from the implementation date back through August II. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA established the Commission s authority to order SCE to enter into contracts with QFs and to set the prices SCE must pay. Under PURPA, these prices must not, as a matter of law, exceed SCE s avoided cost. Avoided cost is the incremental cost SCE would have incurred if it had produced the electric energy itself or purchased it from sources other than a QF or QFs. In D , the Commission considered whether the pricing adopted for calculating SRAC in D should be applied retroactively. D offered parties who believe retroactive application of that pricing is necessary to ensure PURPA compliance an opportunity to file an application by November 4, This application uses this authorized opportunity. This application shows that for the period beginning July 1, 2003 up through July 31, 2008: The MIF adopted to calculate SRAC in D is a more accurate measure of SCE s avoided cost of energy than the Modified Transition Formula, 2 adopted in D , that was in effect during this period; SCE s customers overpaid for QF energy and as-available capacity by a net amount of $50 million over this time period; The application of the MIF shows systematic and continuous overpayments of SRAC energy prices throughout the July 2003 through July 2008 period; and 2 SRAC Energy Price for QFs pursuant to D , as modified by D

6 SCE s customers, who ultimately bear the cost of these purchases, have unnecessarily paid more than avoided costs for this power during this period. Such overpayment is a violation of PURPA. SCE reserves the right to request further application of the D methodology for calculating SRAC until all QF contracts have implemented that methodology. Additionally, on September 3, 2008, SCE filed a Petition for Writ of Review of D and D with the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal. SCE asserts in its Petition for Writ of Review that the MIF chosen in those decisions by the Commission was inappropriate. SCE recommends two alternatives in its Petition: (1 modifying the Administrative Heat Rate in MIF to 9140 BTU per KWh, or (2 utilizing 100% Market Heat Rate (MHR to calculate the MIF. SCE is pursuing the issue of the appropriate SRAC methodology in its Petition for Writ of Review, not in this application. This application requests true-up based only on the CPUC adopted MIF and as-available capacity price. Nonetheless, SCE does reserve its right to modify this request for true-up if the Court accepts the Petition for Writ of Review, and, as a result, the MIF is modified. III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADJUST SCE S QF PAYMENTS DURING THE PERIOD JULY 2003 THROUGH JULY 2008 A. PURPA Limits Payments To QFs To SCE s Avoided Costs PURPA requires utilities to purchase power produced by QFs that meet PURPA s qualification standards. 3 PURPA also limits the price that a utility may be compelled to pay for QF power to that utility s avoided cost. 4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC regulations define avoided cost as the incremental costs to an electric utility of electric energy 3 18 CFR Section (e. 4 USC Section 824a-3(b; 18 CFR Section (a(2. 3

7 or capacity or both which, but for the purchase from the qualifying facility or qualifying facilities, such utility would generate itself or purchase from another source. 5 Because QFs are compensated for their power at the utility s avoided costs, customers should be indifferent to the source of power. Customers should pay the same for QF power as for utility-owned power or power purchased elsewhere. 6 When a QF signs any contract with a utility subject to PURPA, that QF accepts that it will receive no more and no less than the utility s avoided costs for QF power sold to the utility. QFs also are aware that from time to time utility avoided costs will change due to changes in the generation resource mix and fuel and purchased power costs of a utility. Once a utility sees a disconnect between QF pricing and avoided cost, it may put the Commission on notice. QFs may do the same. The Commission may then begin its consideration of possible changes in its determination of avoided cost. QFs and other parties should not be rewarded for drawing out the Commission s consideration of changes to a utility s avoided cost to avoid implementation of a new methodology that accurately reflects avoided costs. If the utility cannot recover payments above avoided cost for the entire period when QF payments exceed avoided costs including the period of Commission review of a new methodology, utility customers suffer and PURPA may be violated. B. The California Court of Appeals Requires The Commission To Assure Customers Do Not Pay More Than SCE s Avoided Costs For QF Power Two recent California Court of Appeals decisions allow retroactive true-up of the SRAC methodology adopted in D based on evidence that the existing SRAC methodology yields QF prices which systematically and continuously exceed avoided costs. Specifically, in Southern California Edison Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 101 Cal.App.4 th CFR Section (b(6; See also 16 USC Section 824a-3(d. 6 See Independent Energy Producers Association, Inc. v. California Public Utilities Commission ( F.3d 848,

8 (2002, identified as Edison II, the Court of Appeals found that the Commission erred by failing to consider a request for retroactive true-up of the Modified Transition Formula when it calculated and adopted the SRAC in D In Edison II, the Court found that utilities were required to buy QF power but they were not required to pay more than it would have cost them to generate the electricity, or purchase it from another source. 7 Southern California Edison Company v. Public Utilities Commission, 128 Cal.App.4 th 1 (2005, referred to as Edison III reaffirmed this decision. In Edison III, the Court found that when SRAC pricing systematically and continuously exceeds avoided cost, it violates PURPA as a matter of law. Moreover, the Edison III decision expressly reiterated the Commission s own statements that it would consider in R , the Avoided Cost OIR, whether the new SRAC formula should be applied retroactively to QF contracts: That being said, it is apparent from this record that the new rulemaking in R was opened and has been pending since April of It is not Edison that is being harmed by this lengthy delay, since we interpret the willingness of the CPUC to give Edison any credit found to be due as indication of intent that the fine tuned formula will be applied retroactively to QF contracts presently required of Edison under the existing formula. It does not appear that CPUC will be harmed other than suffering a tarnished image for being a slow-moving bureaucracy. In truth and in fact the ones being harmed by such procrastination are the rate paying customers of Edison and the general public. 8 D and D were the decisions issued in the Avoided Cost OIR (R These decisions did not apply their MIF and as-available capacity pricing retroactively to QF contracts, but allowed the utilities the opportunity to file applications by November 4, 2008 requesting such relief. SCE recently filed a Petition for Writ of Review of D with the California Court of Appeals alleging that the methodology chosen by the Commission in D and D for calculation of SRAC pricing was flawed. SCE did not request review of the Cal.App.4 th 982, Cal.App.4 th 1, 12 (emphasis added. 5

9 Commission s not considering application of its new SRAC formula to QF pricing in prior years because D allowed it to file an application for such consideration. Otherwise, SCE would have asserted that D was out of compliance with the Edison II and Edison III decision. C. Beginning In July 2003, There Was A Recognized Misalignment Between Avoided Costs And QF Payments On July 14, 2003, SCE submitted testimony in its Long-Term Procurement Plan proceeding indicating that the Modified Transition Formula was based on an outdated heat rate which should be modified to yield an accurate SRAC energy price. 9 D , issued in that proceeding just months after the testimony was filed, explicitly recognized that the Modified Transition Formula in effect was flawed and had, at that point in time, resulted in payments to QFs above avoided costs: The result of the current SRAC pricing system has been that utilities have paid too much for QF power in certain time periods relative to market prices, in some cases, even just on the basis of energy prices notwithstanding capacity payments. More specifically, based on current SRAC time of use factors, utilities have paid too much for QF power at certain times of day. 10 The Commission later confirmed in D , the need to open a rulemaking to update the SRAC methodology. 11 These decisions led to the opening of the Avoided Cost OIR (R , in April 2004, to consider the appropriate level of avoided cost pricing for QFs. D was the Commission s final decision in the Avoided Cost OIR. D adopted the MIF methodology for calculating SRAC. 9 Southern California Edison Company s Long Term Resource Plan Rebuttal Testimony, July 14, 2003, at D at D at

10 D. The Commission Should Correct The Longstanding and Recognized Misalignment Between Actual QF Payments and Avoided Cost In the Avoided Cost OIR (R , the Commission extensively reviewed the Modified Transition Formula and various parties proposals for the appropriate measure of avoided cost for QF payments going forward. The transition formula was originally adopted in D to comply with the mandate of Public Utilities Code Section 390 requiring a transition formula to be adopted for purposes of determining QF energy payments. When adopted, the transition formula was to act as a bridge between the time that utilities generated their own electricity to meet customer demand and the time that they procured generation through the Power Exchange contemplated by Assembly Bill (AB 1890, the 1995 Restructuring Legislation, to meet customer demand. The whole structure upon which D was based was undermined when the California energy market became dysfunctional in 2001 and the Commission suspended the restructuring scheme contemplated in AB The Modified Transition Formula was based on an evidentiary record including 1995 values derived from production cost simulations of QFs operating and QFs not operating. These runs assumed utilities still owned the electric generating facilities that they divested as part of restructuring. Since the first implementation of the transition formula in D , and even since its modification in D to become the Modified Transition Formula, it has been outdated. The utilities now obtain a much greater percentage of their generation through market structures, rather than self generation. The Modified Transition Formula does not take into account utilities reliance on power purchases to meet customer demand. The Commission recognized this when it adopted the MIF in D and D , because the MIF utilizes a Market Heat Rate (MHR to determine 50% of the heat rate to be applied to the gas price in the formula We believe the Commission-determined heat rates and forward NP 15/SP 15 market prices as components of the MIF, and giving equal weight to both, achieves our goal of approximating avoided costs as closely as possible. A Market Index Formula based on an average of forward NP 15/SP 15 market prices and the Continued on the next page 7

11 The utilities divested their generating facilities in From that point forward, utilities have purchased their net short requirements in the market. Since then, the Modified Transition Formula has not accurately reflected the utility s reliance on market structures. The Commission recognized the SRAC energy pricing formula was out of date when it established the Avoided Cost OIR (A In light of the history of the formulas applied by the Commission, and its own decisions in the rulemakings to date, the Commission should protect utility customers by applying the new MIF formula to calculate SRAC from July 2003 through July Doing so will correct a long-standing misalignment between the Modified Transition Formula and avoided cost. IV. SCE S CUSTOMERS PAID $50 MILLION MORE THAN D WOULD ALLOW DURING THE IDENTIFIED PERIOD PURPA requires that QFs be compensated for power deliveries at a level equal to, but not higher than, a utility s avoided cost. Accordingly, the Court in Edison III established a test to determine the accuracy of avoided cost pricing. That test, which avoids mere demonstrations of periods when SRAC formula costs exceeded spot market costs, requires an evidentiary showing of a systematic and continuous violation of PURPA. 14 D amended and restated the MIF and noted that the MIF approximates avoided costs as closely as possible. 15 Table IV-1 compares the SRAC payments actually paid to QFs during the period July 2003 to July 2008 and prices that would have been paid had the D methodology been applied. This comparison shows a consistent overpayment for energy and underpayment for as-available capacity each year. The net result shows that SCE s Continued from the previous page existing Commission adopted heat rates reasonably reflects the utilities short-run avoided costs. D , p D at Cal.App.4 th D at 17, amending D at 67 and Finding of Fact 23. 8

12 customers made about $50 million in overpayments to QFs in violation of PURPA. This demonstrates a systematic and continuous violation of PURPA. The Commission should correct this PURPA violation and protect SCE s customers from overpayment to QFs by adjusting QF payments during the period July 2003 through July Table IV-1 Comparison of Payments at Posted SRAC Versus D ($millions Energy Payments As-Available Capacity Payments Time Period Posted SRAC D Overpayments/ (Underpayments Posted SRAC D Overpayments/ (Underpayments Jul-Dec 2003 $21.5 $20.8 $0.8 $0.4 $2.5 ($ $48.4 $45.7 $2.7 $0.7 $4.4 ($ $145.1 $135.3 $9.9 $1.3 $8.2 ($ $187.3 $171.2 $16.1 $0.8 $5.3 ($ $289.3 $267.7 $21.6 $0.7 $4.7 ($4.0 Jan-Jul 2008 $509.4 $490.0 $19.3 $0.3 $2.4 ($2.1 Interest $6.4 ($4.0 Total $76.6 ($27.3 V. SCE RECOMMENDS RECOVERY FROM QFS OVER THE SHORTER OF THEIR REMAINING CONTRACT PERIODS OR TWO YEARS SCE reviewed its contract portfolio to establish a list of contracts for potential true-up of the MIF and as-available capacity pricing. SCE identified 27 Standard Offer 1 contracts, 12 Reformed Standard Offer 1 contracts, 7 Standard Offer 2 contracts, 23 Standard Offer 3 contracts, 94 Interim Standard Offer 4 contracts and 38 negotiated contracts with QFs. Nothing in these contracts precludes retroactive adjustment of QF pricing or changes in Commission adopted SRAC energy or as-available capacity pricing. SCE proposes to recover the overpayments from active QFs through either a one-time payment or as levelized reductions in contracted payments at SCE s proposed interest rate to counterparties over the lesser of two years or the end of the contract. Likewise, SCE proposes to make as-available capacity payments as levelized additions at SCE s proposed interest rate, to the contracted payment to the 9

13 QF over the lesser of two years or the end of the contract. This proposal reduces the impact of the true-up by reducing future payments from SCE while leaving the option for QFs to make a one-time true-up payment. SCE proposes to record the retroactive true-up benefits and costs in the Energy Resources Recovery Account (ERRA. Because customers on a net basis would receive $50 million in QF overpayments, this will reduce future generation rate levels for SCE s bundled service customers. VI. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS A. Statutory and Procedural Authority This application is made pursuant to D , the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure and the California Public Utilities Code. SCE s authority for this request is Sections 390, 451, 701, 728, and 729 of the Public Utilities Code of the State of California. SCE s request complies with Article 1, which specifies the procedures for the filing of documents, specifically: Form and size of tendered documents (Rule 1.5; 2. Title page (Rule 1.6; 3. Scope of Filing (Rule 1.7; 4. Signatures (Rule 1.8; 5. Service (Rule ; 6. Verification (Rule 1.11; and 7. Tendering and Review of Document for Filing (Rule Because this is a new application, no service list has yet been established. SCE is serving this application in accordance with the service directives on the service list established for the Avoided Cost OIR, R /R

14 In addition, this request complies with Article 2 and Rule 3.2 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and prior decisions, orders and resolutions of this Commission. B. Proposed Categorization, Need For Hearings, Issues To Be Considered, Proposed Schedule - Rule 2.1 Rule 2.1 requires that applications shall state the proposed category for the proceeding, the need for hearings, the issues to be considered, and a proposed schedule. These requirements are discussed below. 1.3(e. 1. Proposed Categorization SCE proposes to characterize this proceeding as ratesetting as defined in Rule 2. Need For Hearings and Proposed Schedule For Resolution Of Issues SCE proposes two schedules below. Table VI-1 assumes no needs for evidentiary hearings. In SCE s review, the issues raised in this application are straightforward and could be resolved without hearings. Nonetheless, the application does present some issues of fact that others may assert require hearings. Table VI-2 assumes that the Commission decides to move forward with evidentiary hearings. Table VI-1 Proposed Schedule Without Evidentiary Hearing SCE files Application November 4, 2008 Responses or Protests Filed (with Supporting Testimony December 4, 2008 SCE files Replies to Responses and Protests December 19, 2008 Prehearing Conference January 8, 2009 Commission Issues Proposed Decision April 8, 2009 Comments to Proposed Decision April 28, 2009 Replies to Comments to Proposed Decision May 4, 2009 Commission issues Final Decision May 14,

15 Table VI-2 Proposed Schedule With Evidentiary Hearings SCE files Application November 4, 2008 Responses or Protests Filed December 4, 2008 SCE files Replies to Responses and Protests December 19, 2008 Prehearing Conference January 8, 2009 Intervenor Testimony March 9, 2009 Rebuttal Testimony March 30, 2009 Evidentiary Hearings April 13-15, 2009 Opening Briefs May 15, 2009 Reply Briefs May 29, Commission Issues Proposed Decision August 31, 2009 Comments to Proposed Decision September 21, 2009 Replies to Comments to Proposed Decision September 28, Issues To be Considered The issues to be considered in this proceeding are described above and set forth in detail in SCE s testimony in support of this Application. The main issues include: The appropriate time period for an adjustment of QF prices to these adopted in D (July 2003 through July 2008; Whether the MIF and as-available capacity prices adopted in D more accurately determine avoided cost than the methods in effect during the adjusted period; The appropriate methodology for adjustment of QF energy and asavailable capacity prices SCE proposes adjustments over two years or the end of the contract whichever is shorter on a levelized basis; and The appropriate method for flowing back to SCE s customers the adjustments in QF pricing. 12

16 C. Legal Name And Correspondence Southern California Edison Company is an electric public utility organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The location of SCE s principal place of business is 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Post Office Box 800, Rosemead, California SCE s attorneys in this matter are Michael D. Montoya and Carol A. Schmid-Frazee. Correspondence or communications regarding this application should be addressed to: Carol A. Schmid-Frazee Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( carol.schmidfrazee@sce.com To request a copy of this application, please contact: Robin Taylor Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( caseadmin@sce.com D. Articles of Incorporation Rule 2.2 A copy of SCE s Certificate of Restated Articles of Incorporation, effective on March 2, 2006, and presently in effect, certified by the California Secretary of State, was filed with the Commission on March 14, 2006, in connection with Application No , and is incorporated herein by this reference pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Certain classes and series of SCE s capital stock are listed on a national securities exchange as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and copies of SCE s latest Annual Report to Shareholders and its latest proxy statement sent to its stockholders has been filed with 13

17 the Commission with a letter of transmittal dated April 2, 2007, pursuant to General Order Nos. 65-A and 104-A of the Commission. E. Service List SCE is serving this application and its exhibits on all parties on the Commission s service lists for proceeding R /R VII. CONCLUSION SCE respectfully asks the Commission to authorize application of the MIF and asavailable capacity pricing adopted in D for the time period of July 2003 through July 2008 to calculate SRAC payments made to QFs. SCE further requests that the Commission flow 14

18 the net benefits of these adjustments back to SCE s customers who have been harmed by overpayment to QFs during the period through the ERRA. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY MICHAEL D. MONTOYA CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE /S/ CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE By: CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Carol SchmidFrazee@sce.com November 4,

19 VERIFICATION I am an officer of the applicant corporation herein, and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I am informed and believe that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4 th day of November, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /S/ STUART R. HEMPHILL Stuart R. Hemphill Vice President SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

20 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 the APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E FOR APPLYING PRICES ADOPTED IN D TO CALCULATE SHORT-RUN AVOIDED COST FOR PAYMENTS TO QUALIFYING FACILITIES BEGINNING JULY 2003 on all parties identified on the attached service list(s. Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: Transmitting the copies via to all parties who have provided an address. First class mail will be used if electronic service cannot be effectuated. Executed this 4th day of November, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /S/ ROBIN TAYLOR ROBIN TAYLOR Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770