to the Settlement Agreement, SCE would use that Commission-adopted methodology in lieu of the methodology in Appendix A to calculate the discount for new load of Maritime Entities.” (Settlement Agreement, Section 4.f., at 11-12.) SCE’s last adopted EDR expired on December 31, 2012, without extension. No new proposal is pending before the Commission and there is nothing in the record to indicate if SCE has any intention of applying to establish a new EDR during the term of the Settlement Agreement. This provision would allow SCE to grant an even lower discount (more advantageous to Maritime Entities) than that provided in the Settlement Agreement without an EDR in existence, criteria for approval or oversight by the Commission. In essence, the Settling Parties are asking for pre-approval of an automatic, but undefined, substitute discount methodology that does not now exist and therefore is wholly outside the record in this proceeding. As such, it is unreasonable, unsupported by the record and not shown to be in the public interest. Therefore, the Settlement Provision included in Section 4.f at 11-12 and the request for its approval in Section 4.n.6 should be approved. This decision does not preclude a future Petition for Modification seeking a change to today’s adopted settlement rates should another EDR program be adopted in SCE’s service territory for which the Maritime Entities can successfully demonstrate eligibility on the same basis that all other potential EDR participants will face. Absent the “substitute discount” provision discussed above, the Settlement Agreement is Reasonable, Consistent with Law and the Public Interest We address, separately, the first two requirements of all-party settlements and then follow with a discussion of the remaining two requirements as part of a broader assessment of the legal and policy merits of the settlement consistent
However, the Settlement Agreement, upon implementation, would require separate authority to construct and so the project description necessarily raised the question of when and to what extent the Commission’s oversight responsibilities for CEQA review and SCE’s compliance with GO 131-D would be triggered. With respect to CEQA, we rely on the response to the ALJ’s Request for additional information on this question provided by the Port. The Port produced documentation demonstrating CEQA compliance activities over the past several years, with the City of Long Beach acting as Lead Agency. One planned project to which the Settlement Agreement provisions would apply, the Pier S Project, is currently undergoing CEQA review. The Joint Parties both acknowledged the individual Port electrification projects would be subject to CEQA. The electric utility facilities contemplated under the Settlement Agreement adopted today are a significant and integral part of the Port’s electrification activities and are included in the overall projects’ scope reviewed under CEQA. The work approved and contemplated under the Joint Settlement approved today will again trigger the Commission’s CEQA oversight responsibilities upon implementation. The record shows clearly that the City of Long Beach has and will continue to act as Lead Agency for CEQA review purposes. This is entirely appropriate under the circumstances presented by the Port’s electrification activities. Under CEQA, it is unnecessary for the Commission to undertake parallel or redundant environmental impact review. The Commission’s role with respect to SCE’s participation in the Port’s electrification projects is as Responsible Agency. As such, we expect that the City of Long Beach will notify the Commission and coordinate with Commission staff regarding its CEQA review of the Port’s planned and future construction