Couple thoughts.  Understanding that we're really trying to get this thing done and that there's a million different ornaments one could hang on the tree (and bring the thing toppling down), I'll just throw this out for consideration.

Seems that as a first-order issue, the judge is either going to approve the settlement or cede to arguments the PUC could make regarding its exclusive ratemaking authority--that is what it is.
Assuming that the judge sides in our favor, there remains the chance that the PUC could take the Edison view and charge DA customers for the undercollection, thereby taking back what we achieved in the settlement based on the way our deals are structured with our customers.
It would help alot if PG&E took the position at the PUC that (for a variety of reasons) the PUC should NOT tack on DA customers' bills any charges designed to pay down the utilities' undercollection.
In a proceeding where Edison and PG&E are on different sides, our chances of prevailing are of course much better.
But it likely won't do much good if we have any such deal written explicitly in the settlement document (i.e., PG&E agrees to take our side at the PUC).
But if there's any way to do some sort of side deal, outside of the settlement agreement, and if PG&E were amenable, there might be some real value.

Again, I know we want to get this thing wrapped up, but thought I'd toss it out there.  We can take it or leave it.

Best,
Jeff