STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

December 8, 2009 Advice Letter 2373-E Akbar Jazayeri Vice President, Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company P O Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Subject: Request by SCE Company for Approval to Grant Easement Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-186 as Extended and Modified by Resolution ALJ-202 (Section 851 Pilot Program) Dear Mr. Jazayeri: Advice Letter 2373-E is effective November 20, 2009 per Resolution E-4284. Sincerely,

Julie A. Fitch, Director Energy Division

*Note reference – Decision (D.) 02-02-049, dated February 21, 2002; D.05-01-032, dated January 13, 2005.

SECTION 851 ADVICE LETTER (AL) SUSPENSION NOTICE ENERGY DIVISION

Utility Name: SCE Date Utility Notified: 9/21/09 via: e-mail Utility No. /Type U 338 /Electric [x] E-Mail to: James.Yee@sce.com Advice Letter No. 2373-E Fax No.: N/A Date AL filed: August 20, 2009 ED Staff Contact: John Boccio Utility Contact Person: James Yee Utility Phone No.: (626) 302-2509 For Internal Purposes Only:

Date Calendar Clerk Notified: _____/_____/_______ Date Commissioners/Advisors Notified: ___/___/___

[x] INITIAL SUSPENSION (up to 105 DAYS)

This is to notify that the above-indicated AL is suspended for up to 105 days beginning on September 21, 2009 for the following reason. If the Commission’s deliberation on the draft resolution prepared by Energy Division extends beyond the expiration of the initial suspension period, the advice letter will be automatically suspended for up to 180 days beyond the initial suspension period. [x] Section 851 Advice Letter requires a Commission Resolution. Expected duration of initial suspension period: 105 days.

[ ] FURTHER SUSPENSION (up to 180 DAYS beyond initial suspension period) Because the AL requires a Commission resolution and the Commission’s deliberation on the resolution prepared by Energy Division has extended beyond the expiration of the initial suspension period, the advice letter has been automatically suspended for up to 180 days beyond the initial suspension period.

_____________________________________________ If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact John Boccio: 415-703-2641, jbx@cpuc.ca.gov

cc: Josie Webb Maria Salinas Honesto Gatchalian Protestants: None

P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Ave. Rosemead, California 91770 (626) 302-3630 Fax (626) 302-4829

Akbar Jazayeri Vice President of Regulatory Operations

August 20, 2009

ADVICE 2373-E (U 338-E)

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION

SUBJECT: Request by Southern California Edison Company for Approval to Grant Easement Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-186 as Extended and Modified by Resolution ALJ-202 (Section 851 Pilot Program)

PURPOSE

Southern California Edison Company(“SCE”) respectfully requests an order from the California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) authorizing SCE to issue a Grant of Easement under Public Utilities Code Section 851 to Kelly John Brooks and Connie Lynne Brooks, as Trustees of the Kelly John Brooks and Connie Lynne Brooks Family Trust dated April 1, 1993 (Collectively, “the Brooks”).

The easement would, pursuant to conditions fully set forth in the Grant of Easement (“Easment”), allow Grantee to use, keep, maintain and repair a small portion of an exsiting dwelling that was discovered to encroach upon certain SCE property located in Shaver Lake, CA (the “Site”). The Site is a small portion of land, approximately 548.34 square feet that SCE owns for purposes of operating and maintaing the Shaver Lake reservior, which is part of the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project. A legal description of the Site is attached to the proposed Grant of Easement (Exhibit “A”).

Under the terms of the proposed Easement, use of the Site is compatible with SCE’s operation of the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project facilities located on the Site. Utility service will not be affected as a result of Commission approval of the Easement.

BACKGROUND

The Brooks purchased certain property located at 44287 Lakeview, Shaver Lake, California, from Mary K. Enouch in September, 2002 (the “Brooks Property”). The Brooks Property is a single-family residence which was constructed over 20 years ago,

ADVICE 2373-E (U 338-E) - 2 - August 20, 2009

consisting of approximately 1843 square feeet, with 3 plus bedrooms and 2.5 baths. The Brooks Property is located adjacent to the Site which is owned in full by SCE.

Subsequent to their purchase of the property, the Brooks considered a possible garage addition to the property and retained an engineering firm to perform a survey of the Brooks Property. The survey of the Brooks Property revealed that a corner of the master bedroom of the residence located on the Brooks Property encroached onto the Site.

Upon learning that the Brooks’ home encroached onto the Site, the Brooks contacted the prior owners and their title company to attempt to resolve the matter. The Brooks ultimately filed a civil complaint against the former owners, First American Title Insurance, and SCE in Fresno County Superior Court, California, on August 11, 2004. In their complaint, the Brooks seek prescriptive easement rights and other equitable relief against SCE.

In order to avoid the inconvenience, expense and uncertainty of further litigation of the dispute, SCE and the Brooks entered into a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” proposes to settle the lawsuit between the parties and for SCE to grant the Easement to the Brooks for the Site. If the Commission authorizes SCE to grant the Easement, and any necessary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approval is obtained,1 then the Easement, in the form attached to the Settlement Agreement, would be executed by SCE, accepted by the Brooks, and recorded with the County of Fresno. The Brooks will then dismiss the lawsuit against SCE. The Easement will give the Brooks the right to use, keep, maintain and repair part of the existing dwelling on Site for noncommerical, residential purposes, as more specifically set out in Easement Section 1. The Easement would be issued in perpetuity as is customary for easements.

The Easement provides that the Brooks’ exercise of easement rights shall not unreasonbably endanger or interfere with the construction, maintenance, use or operation of SCE’s adjacent lands for necessary utility purposes. The Easement contains certain restrictions that are designed to ensure that the Brooks’ easement rights will not interfere with the operation of Shaver Lake or the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project. Those restrictions are enumerated in Easement Sections 2 and 3. For example, the Brooks must ensure that their use of the Site does not endanger health, create a nuisance or otherwise become incompatible with the overall water storage and recreational use of Shaver Lake. The Easement also requires that the Brooks take all reasonable actions to prevent erosion caused by the use of the Site.

SCE retains the right and authority to enter the Site at any and all reasonable times to inspect the Site. SCE also has the right to take all actions it deems appropriate for the 1 SCE operates the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project facilities at Shaver Lake pursuant to a FERC license

(Project No. 67, Shaver Lake). The licesene requires that SCE seek approval from the FERC for uses in the project area other than those set forth in the license.

ADVICE 2373-E (U 338-E) - 3 - August 20, 2009

operation of Shaver Lake and the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project, including regulatory compliance actions.

The Brooks would be responsible for all personal property taxes, as well as other general or special assessments or fees levied against the Site or the Brooks’ improvements thereon. The Easement contains reversionary clauses if the Brooks violate the terms of the Easement.

SCE believes that the Settlement Agreement is an appropriate mechanism for resolving the dispute with the Brooks. Litigation is expensive and unpredictable. Even though SCE believes that a court would not grant the relief sought in the Brooks’ complaint, the Settlement Agreement resolves the dispute in a manner acceptable to both Parties. The Settlement Agreement allows SCE to avoid litigation costs while at the same time maintaining control over the resolution of the dispute – i.e., formulating the terms of the resolution in a manner that protects SCE’s use of the Site, provides fair market value for the Easement, and mitigates the risk of an adverse judicial decision. Moreover, given SCE’s historic use and probable future use of the Site, the Agreement is a reasonable resolution of the dispute. SCE’s grant of an Easement to the Brooks is in the best interests of SCE’s ratepayers and shareholders.

Valuation of Site

An appraisal to properly value the proposed Easement was completed by a State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser, Mitchell Dunshee, who is also a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI). The most appropriate method for valuing this type of easement was employed - a variation of the Sales Comparison Approach. In this approach, the appraiser compares the subject property to similar use property near the subject property. The appraiser concluded a unit value for the land from the comparable sales, then applied a percentage of that unit value to represent the specific property rights that are granted in the proposed Easement. Generally, easements are not transferred in the marketplace and there is, therefore, no “market” for the value of an easement. By taking an estimated percentage of the rights granted in the easement compared to the fee title value, the appraiser correctly can estimate the value of the property rights granted pursuant to the easement. Here, the Easement value was determined to be $500. A copy of Mr. Dunshee’s appraisal is attached as Exhibit “B.”

Environmental Information

The Easement does not allow the Brooks to develop the property in any way other than as it is currently used. The existing private structure on the Site was constructed in 1980. The Site will continue to be used in the same manner it has been used for over the last 29 years. Without any changes to the Site or any change in use, no environmental affects will arise. The environmental baseline will remain the same. As the grant of the Easement has no potential for causing a direct or indirect physical change in the environment, the Commission’s approval of the grant of Easement would not be a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ADVICE 2373-E (U 338-E) - 4 - August 20, 2009

14 C.C.R. §15378. Even if the the authorization of easement for the Site were deemed to be a project under CEQA, the Commission’s approval of this advice letter would be categorically exempt according to 14 C.C.R. § 15301.

OTHER INFORMATION AS REQUIRED PER RESOLUTION ALJ-202

Section III of ALJ-202 requires that certain information be included in advice letters related to Section 851 Pilot Program. Most of that information is set forth above. The additional required information is set forth below.

(A) Identity and Addresses of All Parties to the Proposed Transaction:

Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770

Kelly John Brooks Connie Lynne Brooks, Trustees of the Kelly John Brooks and Connie Lynn Brooks Family Trust dated April 1, 1993 21024 E. American Avenue Reedley, CA 93654

(B) Complete Description of the Property Including Present Location, Condition and Use:

The Site is located on certain land owned by SCE in Shaver Lake, California. SCE owns, operates and maintains the Shaver Lake land for purposes of operating the Big Creek Hydroelectric Project. A legal description of the Site is attached to the Grant of Easement.

(C) Complete Description of Financial Terms of the Proposed Transaction:

SCE is collecting $500.00, which amount represents the full consideration for the Grant of Easement. SCE is not collecting any use fees associated with allowing the Owners’ encroachment in the easement.

(D) Description of How Financial Proceeds of the Transaction Will Be Distributed:

SCE will use the funds to help cover the adminstrative costs invovlved in the preparation and recordation of the Grant of Easement.

(E) Statement on the Impact of the Transaction on Ratebase and Any Effect on the Ability of the Utility to Serve Customers and the Public:

Because no SCE property is being sold or disposed of, there are no changes to SCE’s rate base as a result of this transaction.

ADVICE 2373-E (U 338-E) - 5 - August 20, 2009

(F) A Complete Description of Any Recent Past (Within the Prior Two Years) or Anticipated Future Transactions That May Appear to Be Related to the Present Transaction:

Not applicable.

TIER DESIGNATION

Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-202, this advice letter is subject to Commission disposition and is submitted with a Tier 3 designation.

EFFECTIVE DATE

SCE requests that this advice filing become effective by Commission resolution as soon as possible.

NOTICE

Anyone wishing to protest this advice filing may do so by letter via U.S. Mail, facsimile, or electronically, any of which must be received no later than 20 days after the date of this advice filing. Protests should be mailed to:

CPUC, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 E-mail: jnj@cpuc.ca.gov and mas@cpuc.ca.gov

Copies should also be mailed to the attention of the Director, Energy Division, Room 4004 (same address above).

In addition, protests and all other correspondence regarding this advice letter should also be sent by letter and transmitted via facsimile or electronically to the attention of:

Akbar Jazayeri Vice President of Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facsimile: (626) 302-4829 E-mail: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com

ADVICE 2373-E (U 338-E) - 6 - August 20, 2009

Bruce Foster Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs c/o Karyn Gansecki Southern California Edison Company 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2040 San Francisco, California 94102 Facsimile: (415) 929-5540 E-mail: Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com

There are no restrictions on who may file a protest, but the protest shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which it is based and shall be submitted expeditiously.

In accordance with Section 4 of General Order No. (GO) 96-B, SCE is serving copies of this advice filing to the interested parties shown on the attached GO 96-B list and, in accordance with Resolution ALJ-202, on the Energy Division, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the Commission CEQA Team (clu@cpuc.ca.gov; jnr@cpuc.ca.gov; jmu@cpuc.ca.gov), and the relevant departments of the City of Shaver Lake and County of Fresno.. Address change requests to the GO 96-B service list should be directed by electronic mail to AdviceTariffManager@sce.com or at (626) 302-2930. For changes to all other service lists, please contact the Commission’s Process Office at (415) 703-2021 or by electronic mail at Process_Office@cpuc.ca.gov.

Further, in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 491, notice to the public is hereby given by filing and keeping the advice filing at SCE’s corporate headquarters. To view other SCE advice letters filed with the Commission, log on to SCE’s web site at http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/Regulatory/adviceletters.

For questions, please contact Albert Garcia at (626) 302-6992 or by electronic mail at Albert.Garcia@sce.com.

Southern California Edison Company

Akbar Jazayeri

AJ:ag:jm Enclosures

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

ADVICE LETTER FILING SUMMARY ENERGY UTILITY

MUST BE COMPLETED BY UTILITY (Attach additional pages as needed)

Company name/CPUC Utility No.: Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E)

Utility type: Contact Person: James Yee

ELC GAS Phone #: (626) 302-2509

PLC HEAT WATER E-mail: James.Yee@sce.com

E-mail Disposition Notice to: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com EXPLANATION OF UTILITY TYPE

ELC = Electric GAS = Gas PLC = Pipeline HEAT = Heat WATER = Water

(Date Filed/ Received Stamp by CPUC)

Advice Letter (AL) #: 2373-E Tier Designation: 3

Subject of AL: Request by Southern California Edison Company for Approval to Grant Easement Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-186 as Extended and Modified by Resolution ALJ-202 (Section 851 Pilot Program)

Keywords (choose from CPUC listing): Compliance

AL filing type: Monthly Quarterly Annual One-Time Other

If AL filed in compliance with a Commission order, indicate relevant Decision/Resolution #:

ALJ-186, ALJ-202

Does AL replace a withdrawn or rejected AL? If so, identify the prior AL:

Summarize differences between the AL and the prior withdrawn or rejected AL1:

Confidential treatment requested? Yes No

If yes, specification of confidential information: Confidential information will be made available to appropriate parties who execute a nondisclosure agreement. Name and contact information to request nondisclosure agreement/access to confidential information:

Resolution Required? Yes No

Requested effective date: 12/18/09 No. of tariff sheets: -0-

Estimated system annual revenue effect: (%):

Estimated system average rate effect (%):

When rates are affected by AL, include attachment in AL showing average rate effects on customer classes (residential, small commercial, large C/I, agricultural, lighting).

Tariff schedules affected: None

Service affected and changes proposed1:

Pending advice letters that revise the same tariff sheets: None

1 Discuss in AL if more space is needed.

Protests and all other correspondence regarding this AL are due no later than 20 days after the date of this filing, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, and shall be sent to: CPUC, Energy Division Attention: Tariff Unit 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102 jnj@cpuc.ca.gov and mas@cpuc.ca.gov

Akbar Jazayeri Vice President of Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Facsimile: (626) 302-4829 E-mail: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com Bruce Foster Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs c/o Karyn Gansecki Southern California Edison Company 601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2040 San Francisco, California 94102 Facsimile: (415) 929-5540 E-mail: Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com

Exhibit A

Exhibit B