CPUC A12-12-013 CDSO Motion for Party Status, Decom Fund Triennial Review

Original motion for CDSO Party status

Response by ALJ Darling to Motion for Party Status

From: "Darling, Melanie" <melanie.darling@cpuc.ca.gov> <br Date: September 13, 2013, 6:26:05 PM PDT <br To: martha sullivan [other email addresses redacted for clarity]
Subject: A.12-12-012/A.12-12-013 Motions for Party Status

In response to recently filed motions for party status, I make the following rulings:

[snip] Subject: 2012 NDCTP A.12-12-012/A.12-12-013

In response to recently filed motions for party status, I make the following rulings:

1. Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility – motion is granted and party has 20 days to file a Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation.

1. Coalition to Decommission San Onofre: The motion is denied because it fails to meet the requirements of Rule 1.4(b). CDSO did not state the factual and legal contentions that it intends to make and show that the contentions will be reasonably pertinent to the issues already identified in the scoping memo. CDSO did not offer any description of its interests or intentions in the proceeding. Moreover, CDSO appears to misunderstand the nature of the triennial proceeding which is to review high-level cost estimates of future nuclear decommissioning activities and estimated rates of return on statutory trust funds established to cover those costs. The scope of the proceedings does not currently include review of any detailed decommissioning plans at SONGS, assuming that is what CDSO contemplates. According to SCE’s most recent monthly report on SONGS (served in I.12-10-013 where CDSO is a party), SCE does not expect to submit its detailed decommissioning report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until June 2015.

Melanie M. Darling
Administrative Law Judge
California Public Utilities Commission

Amended Motion for Party Status by CDSO

Response by ALJ Darling to Amended Motion for Party Status

From: "Darling, Melanie" <melanie.darling@cpuc.ca.gov>
Date: September 16, 2013 12:15:57 PM
To: Martha Sullivan <marthasullivan@mac.com> [other email addresses redacted for clarity]
Subject: RE: A.12-12-012, A.12-12-013: Motion for Reconsideration by CDSO of Denial of Party Status

Ms. Sullivan: I will treat this motion as an “Amended Motion for Party Status” because it provides information not in the original motion which you assert supports planned factual and legal contentions in the proceedings.

As to those contentions, I observe the following:

• Reference to a statement by SCE in another proceeding about SCE’s plan to request decommissioning funds to defray decommissioning costs and reduce rates to customers, does not equate to relevance to these proceedings. If SCE so intends, it would likely follow the Advice Letter process currently in place for preliminary review of decommissioning trust fund withdrawals.

• The NRC has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over ISFSI canisters and storage, types of nuclear fuel, and length of refueling cycles, thus these issues are outside the scope of the 2012 NDCTP.

• To the extent that you assert an intention to dispute the assumption in SCE’s decommissioning cost estimate that the plant be placed in SAFSTOR until the NRC approves SCE’s preliminary decommissioning plan in 2015, I agree it is conceivable that your organization could present expert testimony about the practical and economic consequences of SCE commencing active decommissioning immediately, instead of waiting for NRC review.

• To the extent you assert an intention to dispute, as too conservative, SCE’s assumption that a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel will not be available until 2027, I agree that your organization could present expert testimony to support a longer assumption, and should calculate the commensurate additional revenue requirement.

Therefore, I find it possible that CDSO could present evidence about the two relevant legal and factual contentions by SCE which CDSO identified in its Amended Motion for Party Status, and discussed above. As to the other issues identified by CDSO in the Amended Motion, these are outside the scope of the proceedings and do not support the amended motion. CDSO’s motion shall be considered as an “Amended Motion for Party Status,” and is granted within the parameters of this ruling. CDSO is advised that testimony, evidence, and argument addressing matters outside the scope of the proceedings will be struck or given no weight.

Melanie Darling

Administrative Law Judge