- 1. SMSCE Rate Update to theKern County Taxpayers Association
Russ GarwackiManager Pricing Design and ResearchFebruary 9, 2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
2. SMRevenue Requirement Components- Overview SCE Revenue
Requirement (2011)ConclusionDWR Charges Generation Cost recovery on
contracts Investment and O&M forentered into on behalf of
IOUsutility owned generationLess than half of retailduring energy
crisis (shifted to Fuel and purchased powerSCE-Gen as of 1/1/12)
rates fund generation-costs SPVP Programrelated activities:Public
Purpose Programs Legislative mandates (energySCE spends 55%
ofefficiency, RD&D, renewables rate revenue oninvestment, etc.)
9.1% important non- CPUC programs (additionalenergy efficiency,
CARE6.3%generation servicesprogram, etc.)such as
distribution5.3%and transmissionTransmission Investment and O&M
system development 44.2%in transmissionand reliability,
energy(typically >220 kV) efficiency, demandDistribution 35.0%
response, and low Investment in distribution:income
assistancepoles, wires, substations, servicprogramse centers,
meters, etc. California Solar Initiative Demand Response Programs
Edison SmartConnect 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3. SM2012 CPUC
General Rate Case- Phase 1 Update Application Status Evidentiary
hearings took place July 25 August 26 Proposed decision expected
1st quarter 2012 Final decision expected 2nd quarter 2012 Reasons
for Request Inspect, maintain and/or upgrade 1.5 million electric
poles, 712,605 transformers and 88,207 miles of distribution lines
Increase grid security Add smart grid components to integrate more
renewable energy Maintain a skilled work force to handle upcoming
changes to the grid and related customer service needs Current
Status SCE proposed a revenue increase of $794 million for 2012,
then $155 million for 2013 and $515 million for 2014. That
translates to a 6.9% increase in 2012, 1.3% in 2013, and 4.3% in
2014. Expecting a proposed decision in the next 1-2 months. GRC
Phase 1 rates expected to be effective 2nd quarter 20122SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON 4. SM2012 FERC General Rate CaseRate increase
driven primarily by Renewable Portfolio Standard Requested increase
of $135M from $636M to $771M (21%) Rates effective January 1, 2012,
subject to refund.Formula Rate Strategy The rate case model worked
well for SCE when rate changes were infrequent due to sales growth
and limited transmission investment A formula rate approach used at
FERC where specific formulas are used to calculate the utilitys
revenue requirement rather than litigating multiple cases. About
75% of FERC-jurisdictional utilities have a formula rates (e.g.
SDG&E and APS, PG&E does not) If approved, formula rate
changes may begin as early as October-20123 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON 5. SMEnergy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA)- includes
Balancing Accounts ERRA Application Revenue requirements associated
with fuel and power purchases, year-end balancing account balances,
and miscellaneous expenses Filed August 1, 2011 with an update
filed November 2011 Two items are particularly noteworthy 1.
Calculations associated with DA customers Cost
ResponsibilitySurcharge (CRS) and specifically the Power Charge
IndifferenceAmount (PCIA) to be implemented. DA customers re-billed
from2011-forward. 2. ERRA balancing account is currently
over-collected due to lownatural gas prices. Rates will likely be
implemented in second Quarter 2012 and possibly be consolidated
with GRC Phase 1 rate changes4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6.
SMDepartment of Water Resources (DWR) DWR Power Charge DWR Power
Contracts were established in 2001 Two DWR Power Contracts expired
on September 30, 2011 SCEs last DWR Power contract expired on
December 31, 2011 DWR Bond Charge remains in effect DWR Power
Credit (Reserves Refund) A portion of the historical DWR-Power
payments funded these reserves DWR will begin returning these
reserves to which SCE will pass through to Bundled Service
customers on a separate fixed cents/kWh line item credit (about 0.6
cents/kWh). DA customers will see benefit via our reduced portfolio
price thus a reduced CRS.5SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 7. SMEstimated
2012 Rate Changes Rate Group Averages and Tiered Residential
RatesBundled Service Average Rates - /kWh Bundled Service Average
Rates - /kWhJune 2011 2012 2nd Qtr* % changeJune 2011 2012 2nd Qtr*
% change (A) (C) C/B Domestic 15.5 17.7 14.1%NON-CARE Energy
ChargeBaseline12.512.61.0% GS-117.019.3 13.5%101% - 130% of
Baseline14.815.55.0% GS-215.516.66.9%131% - 200% of
Baseline22.930.5 33.0% 201% - 300% of Baseline26.434.0 28.6%
TC-115.417.3 13.0% Over 300% of Baseline29.937.5 25.3%
TOU-GS13.414.37.0% LSMP15.216.69.1%NON-CARE Energy ChargeBaseline
8.5 8.50.0% TOU-8-SEC 12.413.3 6.9% 101% - 130% of
Baseline10.710.70.0% TOU-8-PRI 11.412.0 5.2% 131% - 200% of
Baseline17.520.0 14.3% 201% - 300% of Baseline17.520.0 14.3%
TOU-8-SUB7.1 7.0 -0.9% Over 300% of Baseline17.520.0 14.3% Large
Power 10.410.8 4.6% PA-119.222.3 16.2% PA-214.115.5 10.1%
TOU-AG10.711.13.7% TOU-PA-511.911.6 -2.5% Ag &
Pumping11.912.76.1% Streetlight 18.618.5 -0.3% Total 14.115.6
10.3%* These rate levels are estimated based on SCEs latest
forecast & are subject to change based on CPUC and FERC
decisions** Includes 2012 ERRA forecast and 2012 GRC Phase 1 at
full request6SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8. SM2012 GRC Phase 2 7
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9. SM2012 GRC Phase 2 Overall Objective
- Equitably Recover our Revenue Requirement while supportingvarious
State Energy Policy Objectives. Since 2001, SCE has successfully
reversed the 2001 energy crisis surchargerevenues to achieve an
equitable inter-class revenue allocation and achievedsettlements in
the 2003, 2006, and 2009 cases. Cost Studies and Revenue Allocation
Process Each rate groups share of SCEs authorized revenue
requirements is based on marginal costs for delivery services
(distribution and customer costs), and generation (energy and
capacity) that are litigated in this proceeding. Transmission costs
and their allocation is established by FERC and are not at issue in
this proceeding. SCEs marginal cost proposals generally follow
precedent established in prior GRCs. We apply marginal costs to
customer, demand, and usage characteristics of each customer group
to determine the relative contribution of each rate group to our
costs. We use SCEs current authorized revenue requirements to
illustrate the effect of our proposals. Actual results will
incorporate whatever revenue requirement changes have been adopted
at the time we implement these changes.8SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10. SM2012 GRC Phase 2 Revenue Allocation versus RatesRevenue
Allocation:Revenue allocations are aligned relatively close to cost
of servicePublic policy allocations are primarily defined by
statute or CPUC decisionsCommercial / Industrial Rates:Structures
are currently aligned with cost to serve principlesDynamic pricing
proposals expected to take effect in 2013Residential
Rates:Structures are driven by legislation, not costs: Pre-1970s
oil-embargo rate structure had declining block cost-based rates
Mildly inclining block rates introduced to send a conservation
price signal (2-tier with maximum differential of 15%). 2001 Energy
Crisis brought 5-tier rates with baseline rate restrictions leading
to current maximum tier differentials of nearly 250%.High use
customers subsidize low use customers by over $600M annually.CARE
program subsidy exceeds $300M annually - paid by all remaining
customers (resand non-res) on an equal cents/kWh basis.Bulk of $50M
annual NEM subsidies caused from by-passing upper tier rates9
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11. SMResidential Rate Equity The
Elephant in the RoomTiered rate structures are not
cost-based.Higher usage customers (> 600 kWh/month) currently
pay $600 M above cost annually.At 7 cents/kWh, a 1200 kWh/monthLow
usage customer pays $1,000/year above cost.customers
aresubsidized10SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12. SM2012 GRC Phase 2
Residential Rate Equity SCE has proposed modifications to the rate
structure and baselineallowances to mitigate the growing
residential intra-class subsidies. Proposals to mitigate higher
bills include: Elimination of Tier 5 (collapsing with Tier 4
reduces the highest rate) Overall reduction in baseline allowances
to 50% of energy consumed. Reduced from 60% to 55% in our 2009 GRC
Phase 2 By billing more usage at upper tier rates, upper tier rates
are reduced. Shifts some revenue to low and mid-usage customers.
Separate and distinct baseline allowances for single-family and
multi-familyresidences.11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 13. SM2012 GRC
Phase 2 Residential Rate EquitySingle and Multi-family Baseline
AllowancesImproves cost allocation between Single and Multi-family
dwellingsEstablish separate baselines for Single and Multi-family
dwellings Refinement in baseline allocations = improved cost
allocation Very different needs Average Single-family home is 2,434
square feet vs. 1,249 square feet for average Multi-family home
Average monthly Single-family home usage (kWh) is 690 kWh vs. 400
kWh for Multi-family homes Average number of occupants for
Single-family homes is 3.2 vs. 2.3 for Multi-family homes Current:
BaselineProposed: Baseline Sing-family Multi-family
Sing-familyMulti-familyTier 148%65% Tier 152%50%Tier 211% 9% Tier
211%10%Tier 3 and above41%26% Tier 3 and above37%40%12SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON 14. SM2012 GRC Phase 2 Residential Rate
EquityBaseline Adjustments Basic Customer Daily Allowance --
SummerCurrent @ 55%Proposed at 50% Baseline Regions SingleMulti59.1
11.04.969.2 11.16.38 10.2 12.36.99 13.9 15.19.5 10 16.0 17.0 11.7
13 18.6 18.6 14.2 14 16.1 16.1 11.7 15 43.9 45.8 26.9 16 11.5
11.99.313SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15. SM2012 GRC Phase 2
Residential Rate ProposalsCollapse Tiers, BaselineComparison of
2012 GRC Non-CAREStatus Quo DesignModificationsRates StructuresJune
2011 (Note 1) (Note 2) Baseline Allowance =>55% 55%50% Tiers
=> 5 54Baseline12.512.4 12.4101% - 130% of Baseline 14.814.8
14.8131% - 200% of Baseline 22.924.5 23.0200% - 300% of Baseline
26.428.0 27.0Over 300% of Baseline 29.931.5 27.0Single Family Basic
Charge $/month 0.880.88 0.88Comparison of 2012 GRC CARE
RatesStructuresBaseline 8.5 8.58.5101% - 130% of Baseline 10.710.7
10.7131% - 200% of Baseline 17.518.7 17.5200% - 300% of Baseline
17.518.7 17.5Over 300% of Baseline 17.518.7 17.5Single Family Basic
Charge $/month 0.700.70 0.70Notes:1) The status quo rate structure
is defined as SCEs existing rate structure, maintaining the
existing customer charge, baseline allocations, and $0.07/kWh
differential between Tier 3 and Tier 5 rates.2) The Proposed rate
structure includes the adjustments to baseline allowances and a
4-Tier rate structure.3) 2012 forecasted rates (columns 2-5),
reflect updated cost allocations. Note: Data above do NOT include
impacts of all 2012 revenue requirements changes. 14SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON 16. SM2012 GRC Phase 2 Residential Rate Equity
KernTax was instrumental in getting several rate changes in
PG&Es recent GRC. Reduced baseline allowances from 60% to 55%
(SCE in 2009 GRC) Implemented a Tier 3 rate for CARE customers (SCE
in 2003 GRC) Eliminated Tier 5 (SCE proposed in 2012 GRC) A new
customer charge for PG&E was rejected by the CPUC on legal
andpolicy grounds (SCE in 1995 GRC) SCEs proposals help, but
significant improvements in rate equity will require legislation.
The single most significant rate change to improve equity is the
ability toimplement a reasonable customer charge. Typical utility
monthly customer charges range from $5-$10. If implemented, these
new revenues would offset upper tier rate levels. 15SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON 17. SMDynamic Pricing Deployment 2009 GRC Phase 2
decision (D.09-08-028) ordered SCE to file an applicationproposing:
Mandatory TOU rates for all non-residential customers Default
Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) rates for all commercial/industrial
customers< 200 kW and Ag/Pumping customers > 200 kW New rates
to be effective January 1, 2012 On September 1, 2010, SCE filed its
Dynamic Pricing application proposing: Mandatory TOU rates for all
non-residential customers Default CPP rates for all
commercial/industrial customers < 200 kW and Ag/Pumpingcustomers
> 200 kW ALJ Ruling directed SCE to include its Dynamic Pricing
proposals in its 2012 GRCPhase 2 Application In the 2012 GRC Phase
2 Application, SCE proposed to: Implement mandatory TOU rates for
non-residential customers Offer CPP rates to all customer classes
on an opt-in basis On-line customer rate analysis tool to be
deployed late 2012 for rates to be effectiveJanuary 2013.16
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18. SMSCEs 2012 GRC Phase 2 Current
ScheduleSCE Application and Service of Marginal June 6, 2011Cost
(MC), Revenue Allocation (RA) andRate Design TestimonyDRA MC, RA
and Rate DesignDecember 20, 2011TestimonyOther Parties MC, RA and
Rate DesignFebruary 6, 2012TestimonySettlement Discussions February
April 2012Public Participation HearingsFebruary April 2012Rebuttal
Testimony- All Parties April 23, 2012Evidentiary Hearings May
14-18, 2012Opening BriefsJune 15, 2012Reply BriefsJuly 6, 2012ALJ
Proposed Decision (PD)October 2012Initial Comments on PDOctober
2012Reply Comments on PDOctober 2012CPUC - Final Decision November
2012Rates Effective January 1, 201317 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
19. SMBackup18 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20. SM 2012 GRC Phase 2
Bill Impacts: Oct 7th filing - Non CAREResidential NON-CARE
(Bundled):Annual Bill Impact (June 2011 Vs 2012 GRC) 35.0%33.1%
30.0% 25.0%20.8% %Customer 20.0% 16.0% 15.0% 10.0% 8.2%6.0%5.0%
4.6%5.0%3.9%1.6% 0.4%0.3%0.0%0.0% Below - < -10% to - < -5%
to -< -3% to> 0% to> 3% to 5% >5% to> 10% to> 15%
to > 20% to>30% to10%5%3% 0%3% 10%15%20% 30%45%Above45% %
ImpactPercentAverage Rates - Impact - Average Monthly Bill
ImpactCustomerCustomer Ratio Average/kWh %-$ %% AllMonthly$ Bill %
Numbe r%%Multi%Single % Multi Single% Ba s ic Ele ctric Bill da
yskW h J une 2011 GRC 2012 Ave ra geCurre ntPropos e d Cha ngeBe
low -10% 11,617 0.4% 0.0%0.6% 0.0%100.0% 0.6%99.4%328 97418.9 16.5
-12.6% $184.2 $161.0-$23.2< -10% to -5%613,01320.8%
0.2%30.2%0.3%99.7%97.4%2.6%351 95221.4 19.9-7.1% $203.5
$189.0-$14.5< -5% to -3% 472,27316.0%
0.1%23.3%0.2%99.8%98.8%1.2%351 80218.5 17.8-3.8% $148.3
$142.7-$5.6< -3% to 0%974,10233.1% 20.1% 39.0%19.0%
81.0%91.2%8.8%301 47016.2 15.9-1.8%$76.1$74.8-$1.3> 0% to 3%
240,554 8.2% 12.3% 6.3% 47.2% 52.8%81.9% 18.1%322 53116.3 16.40.6%
$86.5$87.0 $0.5> 3% to 5%46,856 1.6% 4.9%0.1% 96.1%3.9%66.6%
33.4%313 40415.9 16.64.0% $64.3$66.9 $2.6>5%to 10%115,818 3.9%
12.0% 0.3% 95.4%4.6%68.7% 31.3%322 48516.2 17.47.7% $78.4$84.4
$6.0> 10% to 15% 148,030 5.0% 15.7% 0.2% 97.3%2.7%76.0% 24.0%326
54516.0 18.012.7%$87.3$98.3 $11.0> 15% to 20% 176,244 6.0% 19.1%
0.0% 99.7%0.3%81.8% 18.2%328 53915.5 18.317.5%$83.8$98.5 $14.6>
20% to 30% 136,197 4.6% 14.8% 0.0%100.0%0.0%86.6% 13.4%323 48914.7
18.022.2%$72.1$88.1 $16.0>30% to 45% 7,9130.3%
0.9%0.0%100.0%0.0%0.7%99.3%327 88714.1 19.034.6% $125.5 $168.8
$43.4Above 45%181 0.0% 0.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%0.0% 100.0%4382413.3
19.747.6% $110.0 $162.3 $52.4 Group Tota l 2,942,798 100.0%
100.0%100.0%31.3% 68.7%89.5% 10.5%326 65218.3 18.0-1.8% $119.3
$117.2-$2.1 Note: Customer Charge = $0.88; 4 Tiers; BL = 50%
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19 21. SM2012 Functional Revenue
Allocation Factors% of Marginal Cost Revenue Responsibility (MCRR)
Generation Percent ofTotal GenerationGeneration
System(BundledEnergy Capacity Sales (incl.Rate ClassDistribution
Sales) (Bundled Sales) (Bundled Sales) losses)Total Residential
50.03% 41.49% 37.81%47.77%37.14%GS-1 6.92%6.55%6.60% 6.46%
5.91%TC-1 0.14%0.07%0.09% 0.05% 0.07%GS-220.07% 19.55%
20.17%18.49%19.05%TOU-GS-3 7.90%8.42%8.64% 8.04% 9.71%Total
LSMP35.04% 34.60% 35.50%33.05%34.74%TOU-8-SEC6.39% 8.46%8.99%7.55%
9.74%TOU-8-PRI3.55% 4.79%5.22%4.05% 5.95%TOU-8-SUB0.97%
3.83%4.37%2.92% 5.68%Total Large Power 10.92% 17.07%
18.57%14.52%21.37%TOU-PA-2 1.88% 2.27%2.50%1.87% 2.07%TOU-PA-3
0.84% 1.40%1.66%0.96% 1.31%Total Ag.&Pump.2.72% 3.67%4.16%2.83%
3.38%Total Street Lights0.27% 0.59%0.93%0.01% 0.55%Standby-SEC0.18%
0.23%0.26%0.19% 0.25%Standby-PRI0.58% 0.69%0.79%0.54%
0.77%Standby-SUB0.28% 1.65%1.97%1.10% 1.81%Total Standby1.04%
2.58%3.02%1.82% 2.83%SYSTEM 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
The allocation factors indicate the relative importance of various
revenue requirement changes upon different rate groups. For
example, a distribution case (e.g. GRC Phase 1) has a larger impact
on Residential customers versus Large Power customers, who are more
strongly affected by generation cases (e.g. ERRA). 20SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON 22. SM 2012 GRC Phase 2 Class Average Rate Levels
Average Rate Impacts at June 2011 Present Rate Revenue Levels
Current +Phase 1 % Change (JuneJune 2011ProposedProposed 11 vs.
(/kWh)% of SAR(/kWh) % of SAR % Change (/kWh) % of SAR
Current+Phase 1)Total Domestic15.6 110%15.9113%2.0%17.3
114%10.5%GS-117.0 120%15.7111% -8.0%16.8 111%-1.1%TC-115.3
108%16.2114% 5.7% 17.6 116%15.0%GS-215.2 107%14.8105% -2.6%15.9
104% 4.5%TOU-GS-313.2 93% 13.696%2.9% 14.5 95% 10.0%Total LSMP15.0
106%14.6104% -2.6%15.7 103% 4.5%TOU-8-SEC 12.488%12.1 86%
-2.6%12.985% 3.7%TOU-8-PRI 11.279%11.0 78% -1.4%11.777%
5.0%TOU-8-SUB7.150% 7.7 55% 9.3%8.254%15.6%Total Large Power
10.876%10.7 76% -0.4%11.475%6.0%TOU-PA-213.092%12.7 90%
-2.1%13.690% 4.9%TOU-PA-310.272%10.7 75% 4.7% 11.475%11.6%Total
Ag.&Pumping 11.984%11.9 84% 0.2% 12.784% 7.2%Total Street
Lighting 18.0 127%18.3130%2.0%18.8 123%4.3%Standby-SEC 11.581%11.6
82%0.5%12.481%7.4%Standby-PRI 11.380%11.5
81%1.6%12.381%8.4%Standby-SUB8.157% 8.1 58%0.5% 8.656%5.6%Total
Standby9.265% 9.3 66%0.8% 9.865%6.7%Total System14.2 100%14.1100%
-0.1%15.2 100%7.3%Note: Data above do NOT include impacts of all
2012 revenue requirements changes. 21SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.
SMHistorical Class Average RatesSouthern California Edison
CompanyHistorical Average Rates by Rate Group (/kWh) Based on
Recorded Revenue and Sales (/kWh) Bundled ServiceBundled Service
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20032004 2005 2006 200720082009 2010 2011
1 2012 2Domestic11.4 11.4 11.513.013.5 12.812.512.915.7 15.315.0
15.2 15.515.5 15.9GS-112.1 12.1 12.016.217.5 15.814.815.217.6
17.617.0 16.9 17.517.0 15.7TC-1 7.37.47.410.313.5 12.412.011.513.4
13.513.8 14.5 15.815.5 16.2GS-2 9.9 10.2 10.113.215.5
14.113.313.515.6 14.314.3 14.8 15.715.4 14.8TOU-GS-3 9.78.9
10.213.114.7 13.011.810.813.6 14.214.1 14.3 13.713.4 13.6Sm. and
Medium Comm.10.3 10.5 10.413.715.8 14.413.513.615.6 14.914.7 15.0
15.515.2 14.6TOU-8-Sec8.18.28.712.214.3 12.611.211.313.2 12.512.4
12.7 13.112.4 12.1TOU-8-Pri7.27.47.910.913.0 11.510.310.712.6
11.911.8 11.7 11.811.4 11.0TOU-8-Sub4.95.15.7 8.3 9.48.4 7.4 7.5
9.18.3 8.17.98.0 7.17.7Large Power6.87.17.710.612.6 11.2
9.910.011.8 11.110.9 10.9 11.110.4 10.7TOU-8-Sec-Standbyn/an/an/a
n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a
n/an/an/an/a11.6TOU-8-Pri-Standbyn/an/an/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a
n/an/a n/an/an/an/a11.5TOU-8-Sub-Standbyn/an/an/a n/a n/an/a n/a
n/a n/an/a n/an/an/an/a 8.1Large Power-Standbyn/an/an/a n/a n/an/a
n/a n/a n/an/a n/an/an/an/a 9.3PA-112.8 12.1 12.114.315.3
14.914.015.118.2 16.917.5 17.8 19.419.2 12.7PA-2 8.78.58.710.711.3
10.510.410.712.8 12.512.8 13.1 14.814.1AG-TOU 7.46.97.5 9.410.19.0
8.5 8.510.09.6 9.79.9 10.910.7 10.7TOU-PA-5 6.96.37.0 8.8 9.48.2
7.8 7.8 9.49.0 8.99.19.911.9Ag. and Pumping8.88.58.710.611.19.9 9.4
9.511.3 10.910.8 11.0 12.011.9 11.9St. and Area Lighting 17.0 14.1
13.915.817.3 15.514.714.015.3 16.917.9 18.7 19.018.6 18.3Total
System 9.69.9 10.012.514.0 12.912.212.414.6 14.013.8 14.0 14.414.1
14.11Based on June 2011 Proposed Rate Revenue (PRR) Rates2 1Based
on June 2011 Proposed Rate Revenue (PRR )Rates2012 GRC Proposed
Rates22012 GRC Proposed Rates with no revenue requirement
change32012 GRC Proposed Rate Group Change for Ag/Pumping Customers
with Demand Demands > 200 kW (AG-TOU and TOU-PA-5 to TOU-PA-3)
to TOU-PA-3 2012 GRC Proposed Rate Group Change for Ag/Pumping
Customers with 200 kW (AG-TOU and TOU-PA-5 will be mapped will be
mapped22 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24. SMHistorical Percent of
System Average Rates Southern California Edison Company Historical
Average Rates by Rate Group (/kWh) Bundled Service Based on
Recorded Revenue and Sales Bundled Service1998 19992000 2001
20022003 2004 20052006 2007 2008 2009 20102011 12012
2Domestic118%115% 114% 104% 96%99% 103% 104%108% 109%109%109% 108%
110%113%GS-1125%122% 120% 130% 125%122% 121% 123%121% 126%123%120%
122% 120%111%TC-176% 74%74%83%96% 96%99%93% 92%96% 100%103% 110%
110%115%GS-2103%103% 100% 106% 110%109% 109% 109%107% 103%104%106%
110% 109%105%TOU-GS-3100%90%102% 105% 105%100% 97%87%
94%102%102%102% 95%95% 96%Sm. and Medium Comm.107%106% 104% 110%
113%111% 111% 110%107% 107%107%107% 108% 108%104%TOU-8-Sec
84%83%87% 98%102% 98%92% 92%90% 90%90%91%91%88% 86%TOU-8-Pri
75%74%79% 87%92%89%84% 86%86% 85%86%83%82%81% 78%TOU-8-Sub
51%52%56% 67%67%65%61% 61%62% 60%59%56%56%50% 55%Large Power
70%72%77% 85%90%87%82% 81%81% 79%79%78%77%73%
76%TOU-8-Sec-Standbyn/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/a n/an/an/a
82%TOU-8-Pri-Standbyn/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/a n/an/an/a
82%TOU-8-Sub-Standbyn/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/a n/an/an/a
57%Large Power-Standbyn/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/an/a n/an/a
n/an/an/a 66%PA-1133%122% 120% 115% 109%115% 115% 122%125%
121%127%127% 135% 136%90%PA-290% 86%87%86%80% 82%86%86% 88%89% 93%
93%103% 100%AG-TOU76% 69%74%75%72% 69%70%69% 69%69% 70%
71%76%76%76%TOU-PA-571% 63%70%70%67% 64%64%63% 65%65% 64%
65%69%84%Ag. and Pumping 92% 85%87%85%79% 76%77%77% 78%78% 78%
79%84%85% 84%St. and Area Lighting 176%142% 138% 127% 123%120% 121%
114%105% 121%130%134% 132% 132%130%Total System100%100% 100% 100%
100%100% 100% 100%100% 100%100%100% 100% 100%100%1 1Based Based on
June 2011 Proposed Revenue (PRR) Rates )Rateson June 2011 Proposed
Rate Rate Revenue (PRR2 2 2012 GRC Proposed Rates with no revenue
requirement change 2012 GRC Proposed Rates3 32012 GRC Proposed Rate
Group Change for Ag/Pumping Customers with Demand < 200 kW (PA-1
and PA-2 will be mapped to TOU-PA-2) to TOU-PA-2) 2012 GRC Proposed
Rate Group Change for Ag/Pumping Customers with Demands < 200 kW
(PA-1and PA-2 will be mapped4 42012 GRC Proposed Rate Group Change
for Ag/Pumping Customers with Demands > 200 kW (AG-TOU and
TOU-PA-5 will be mapped to TOU-PA-32012 GRC Proposed Rate Group
Change for Ag/Pumping Customers with Demand > 200 kW (AG-TOU and
TOU-PA-5 will be mapped to TOU-PA-3) 23SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON
