|
|
|
|
Filer Requested Category:
Preliminary Category:
Commission Designated Category:
Ratesetting
|
Filed By:
CPUC
|
|
|
DOCUMENTS
Number of Documents: 149
(only the most current 100 are displayed)
Display all documents for this proceeding
|
Type:
DRAFT DECISION
|
Filing Date:
April 1, 2005
|
Filed By:
ALJ/THOMAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
Comments are due April 21, 2005; reply comments - 5 days after comments are filed.
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2005
|
Filed By:
ALJ/THOMAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
Regarding whether to close proceeding. Parties should file comments on the issues set forth, by March 13, 2005.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 10, 2002
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
On June 5, 2002, Joseph M. Malkin, attorney of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, representing PG&E Corporation (PG&E Corp.) met with David Gamson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, in San Francisco. Also present were Peter Hanson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, and Frederick Brown, attorney, of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, for PG&E Corp. Written materials (attached to the notice) were used. Malkin and Brown discussed the Commission's decision on jurisdiction, D02-01-037, and focused on the Commission's and Public Staff Division's position on jurisdiction in testimony before the Commission and in correspondence to the Securities Exchange Commission, both in 1985.
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
March 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Request for an award of compensation for substantial contributions to D.02-01-037 and D.02-01-039
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
February 28, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
to the applications for rehearing of D02-01-037 on Commission jurisdiction over the holding companies
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
February 26, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
for rehearing of D02-01-039 on the meaning of the first priority condition
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 13, 2002
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-037
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 13, 2002
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-037
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 13, 2002
|
Filed By:
SEMPRA ENERGY/SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-037
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
For Official Notice
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-039
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-039
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-039
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-039
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
Request for official notice (Special Appearance)
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
February 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SEMPRA ENERGY/SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D02-01-039
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
February 7, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/CHAMBERLAIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
of withdrawal of its motion for order to compel production of documents
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002 at 1:30 p.m., Bruce Foster and Michael Hoover of Southern California Edison Company met with Commissioner Duque and his advisor, Lynn McGhee. Written material (attached to the Notice) was used. Messrs. Foster and Hoover urged that the Commission should reject the Draft Decision on First Priority Condition (FPC) in that it would rewrite regulatory history, would constitute bad policy as a matter of utility finance and was not a substitute for compensatory ratemaking; that no rational business entity would obligate themselves to the open-ended commitment the Draft Decision characterizes the FPC as being.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002 between 10:00 and 11:45 a.m., Bruce Foster and David Van Iderstine of Southern California Edison Company attended an all-party meeting with Commissioner Brown and his advisor, David Gamson, and other advisors, Kevin Coughlan and Lynn McGhee. Notes used by Mr. Foster (attached to the Notice) were delivered to Commissioner Brown at his request after the meeting. Messrs. Foster and Van Iderstine urged that with respect to jurisdiction over holding companies, that the Commission should reject the Draft Decision and should approve the alternate decision of Commissioner Duque in that holding companies are not utilities and therefore, not subject to Commission jurisdiction; that with reference to the First Priority Condition (FPC), that the Draft Decision would rewrite regulatory history, would constitute bad policy as a matter of utility finance and was not a substitute for compensatory ratemaking; that no rational business entity would obligate themselves to the open-ended commitment the Draft
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, John Clarke, Manager of Regulatory Relations, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), met with Cmmr. Duque in San Francisco. Also present were Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, and Joe Malkin and Fred Brown, attorneys for PG&E, and Shirley Woo, attorney of PG&E. Clarke stated that both of the proposed decisions are in error and that PG&E believes the Commission does not have jurisdiction over utility holding companies. In addition, Malkin stated that the proper interpretation of the `first priority condition?, which appears in prior decisions, is limited to capital to ensure appropriate investment in plant to meet the utilities? obligation to serve.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002 at 3:30 p.m., Bruce Foster and Michael Hoover of Southern California Edison Company met with Commissioner Bilas and his advisors, Kevin Coughlan and Julie Fitch. Written material (attached to the Notice) was used. Messrs. Foster and Hoover urged that the Commission should reject the Draft Decision on First Priority Condition (FPC) in that it would rewrite regulatory history, would constitute bad policy as a matter of utility finance and was not a substitute for compensatory ratemaking; that no rational business entity would obligate themselves to the open-ended commitment the Draft Decision characterizes the FPC as being.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, Bruce Bowen, Director of Regulatory Analysis, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), met with Cmmr. Bilas in San Francisco. Also present were Kevin Coughlan and Julie Fitch, advisors to Cmmr. Bilas, and Joe Malkin and Fred Brown, attorneys for PG&E. Woo stated that the first priority draft decision is in error. Woo explained that the proper interpretation of the 'first priority condition,' which appears in prior decisions, is limited to capital requirements when necessary to ensure appropriate investment in plant to meet the utilities' obligation to serve.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, Bill Reed, Senior Vice President of Sempra Energy (Sempra), met with Cmmr. Duque in San Francisco. Also present were Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr. Duque; and Leslie Katz, Regional Vice President, Dave Gilmore, Attorney, and Billy Blattner, CPUC Relations Administrator, for Sempra. Reed explained that when the first holding company case was considered in 1985, the intention was to protect the utility from having resources diverted to subsidize unprofitable non-regulated affiliates. Reed stated that the interpretation of First Priority Condition in the draft decision (DD) would turn the ratepayer indifference standard into a ratepayer benefit, a condition San Diego Gas & Electric Company would have rejected. Gilmore noted that the DD interprets capital far more expansively than common usage. Gilmore added that there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law in the DD that justify dismissal of PG&E Corp. from the case.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, Dave Gilmore, Attorney for Sempra Energy (Sempra), met with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Also present were David Gamson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, and Kevin Coughlan, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas; Bill Reed, Senior Vice President, Leslie Katz, Regional Vice President, and Billy Blattner, CPUC Relations Administrator, for Sempra. Gilmore explained that Sempra is not a `public utility? within the meaning of the Public Utilities Code and is therefore beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Gilmore added that had the original holding company decisions specified retained jurisdiction, they would have been rejected by San Diego Gas & Electric Company. Reed explained that when the first holding company case was considered in 1985, the intention was to protect the utility from having resources diverted to subsidize unprofitable non-regulated affiliates. Reed noted that AB 265 specifies that shortfalls are to be recovered in rates. Reed stated
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, Leslie Katz, Regional Vice President of Sempra Energy (Sempra), met with Cmmr. Bilas in San Francisco. Also present were Kevin Coughlan and Julie Fitch, advisors to Cmmr. Bilas; and Dave Gilmore, Attorney, and Billy Blattner, CPUC Relations Administrator for Sempra. Katz explained that when the first holding company case was considered in 1985, the intention was to protect the utility from having resources diverted to subsidize unprofitable non-regulated affiliates. Gilmore stated that the interpretation of First Priority Condition in the draft decision (DD) would turn the ratepayer indifference standard into a ratepayer benefit, a condition San Diego Gas & Electric Company would have rejected. Katz explained that to require a holding company to guarantee the obligations of a regulated utility without just compensation through authorized rate recovery amounts to an unconstitutional taking. Gilmore added that there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law in the DD that justify d
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, Joe Malkin, attorney for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), attended an all-party meeting with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Also present were David Gamson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, Kevin Coughlan, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas, and other parties listed on the attachment to the notice. Malkin stated that both of the proposed decisions would be in error if approved by the Commission and explained that it does not have jurisdiction over utility holding companies. In addition, Malkin stated that the proper interpretation of the 'first priority condition' that appears in prior decisions is limited to capital to ensure appropriate investment in plant to meet the utilities' obligation to serve.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
January 11, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On January 8, 2002, Joe Malkin, attorney for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), met with Cmmr. Duque in San Francisco. Also present were Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, and Fred Brown, attorney, John Clarke, Manager of Regulatory Relations, and Shirley Woo, attorney, for PG&E. Malkin stated that both of the proposed decisions would be in error if approved by the Commission and explained that it does not have jurisdiction over utility holding companies. In addition, Malkin stated that the proper interpretation of the 'first priority condition' that appears in prior decisions is limited to capital to ensure appropriate investment in plant to meet the utilities' obligation to serve.
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
January 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/CHAMBERLAIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
to PG&E's Opposition to Motion for Order to Compel Production of Documents
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
on theDraft Decision of ALJ Thomas regarding the first priority condition
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/CHAMBERLAIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
on the Draft Decision of ALJ Thomas concerning the meaning of the first priority condition
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
on Draft Decision of ALJ Thomas on meaning of first priority condition (Special Appearance)
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
Joinder in comments on Draft Decision re: First Priority Condition (Special Appearance)
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of scheduled individual ex parte communication meeting
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of scheduled individual ex parte communication meeting
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on Draft Decision re: First Priority Condition
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
In accordance with Draft Decision issued December 26, 2001
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
January 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Comments on the ALJ Draft Decision on the first priority condition; Request for official notice attached
|
Type:
OPPOSITION
|
Filing Date:
December 31, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to the Motion of the ORA for Order to Compel Production of Documents
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
December 28, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to SDG&E and PG&E Corporation requests for extension of time in which to comment on Draft Decision
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
December 28, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
in reply to the Draft Decision in the Order Instituting Investigation 01-04-002
|
Type:
SUPPLEMENT
|
Filing Date:
December 28, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Motion for extension of time in which to comment on Draft Decision
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
December 27, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for Extension of Time in which to comment on Draft Decision.
|
Type:
DRAFT DECISION
|
Filing Date:
December 26, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/THOMAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
[Interim Opinion on meaning of first priority condition] mailed 12/26/2001 (Comments are due by 1/4/2002; no reply comments will be accepted.)
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
December 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/CHAMBERLAIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
Motion for order to compel production of documents
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
August 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Summary: AUGMENTATION REQUIRED. On August 1, 2001, Matthew Freedman, attorney for The Utility Reform Network (TURN), met with Cmmr. Brown. Also present were Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, and Michel Florio and Marcel Hawiger, attorneys for TURN. Freedman urged the Commission not to support the alternate decision of Cmmr. Duque (alternate). Freedman argued that the alternate is flawed because it endorses a view of the relationship between the Commission and the parent companies that is unsupported by statute or judicial precedent. Freedman and Florio also noted the inappropriate and misleading use of the Henderson decision. Freedman further suggested that the alternate could make it very difficult for the Commission to exercise its authority under Section 1708. Finally, Freedman asked the Commission to support a decision that will find that the Commission has sufficient jurisdiction to enforce the original conditions against the utility parent companies.
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 27, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
of Cmmr. Duque to the Draft Decision of ALJ Thomas re: Motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (special appearance) [filing authorized by ALJ Thomas.]
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 26, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Draft Decision of Cmmr. Duque on jurisdictional issues
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 26, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
Decision of Cmmr. Duque to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 26, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
Decision dated July 19, 2001.
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 26, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
Description:
Draft Decision of Cmmr. Duque
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
July 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/THOMAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
finds that Aglet Consumer Alliance and The Utility Reform Network are eligible for compensation in this proceeding.
|
Type:
ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 20, 2001
|
Filed By:
CMMR/DUQUE/PUC
|
|
Description:
Draft Decision [Decision granting motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction] mailed 7/19/2001 (Per Chief ALJ Carew: Comments shall be filed and received by 7/26/2001; no reply comments will be accepted.)
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
On July 10, 2001, Joseph Malkin, attorney of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, representing PG&E Corporation, met with Cmmr. Bilas in San Francisco. Also present were Ann Watson, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas, Denise Alter, attorney of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, representing PG&E Corporation, and Shirley Woo, attorney for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Malkin stated that the draft decision is flawed.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: On July 10, 2001, Shirley Woo, attorney, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, met with Cmmr. Bilas in San Francisco. Also present were Ann Watson, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas, and Joseph Malkin and Denise Alter, attorneys of Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, representing PG&E Corporation. Woo stated that the Commission has jurisdiction over the utility and could enforce holding company conditions against the utility in a Commission proceeding.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 10, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
Summary: On July 5, 2001, Joseph Malkin, attorney of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, representing PG&E Corporation, met with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Also present were David Gamson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, and Shirley Woo, attorney, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Referring to a draft decision (DD) on motions to dismiss, Malkin stated that it flawed. Malkin explained that it begins with an erroneous premise - that PG&E Corporation does not accept the validity of the Commission's holding company conditions to which it agreed. Malkin stated that PG&E Corporation does accept that those conditions are binding, but that they are contractual in nature. Malkin explained that the jurisdiction to enforce the holding company conditions rests with the courts, not with the Commission. Malkin stated that the DD's assertion that the Commission could ignore the corporations' separate identities without regard to any established principle of piercing the corporate veil was both novel and legally incorrect.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 10, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On July 5, 2001, Shirley Woo, Attorney for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, met with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Also present was David Gamson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, and Joseph Malkin, attorney of Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, representing PG&E Corporation. Woo stated that the Commission has jurisdiction over the utility and could enforce holding company conditions against the utility in a CPUC proceeding.
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 3, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: LATE FILED. On June 27, 2001, Bruce Foster of Southern California Edison Company (Edison) met with Cmmr. Bilas and Kim Malcolm, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, in two separate meetings in San Francisco. In the meeting with Cmmr. Bilas also participated Ann Watson, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas, and in the meeting with Cmmr. Bilas - Laura Gasser and Michael Edson, attorneys for the Commission. Michael Hoover of Edison was also present. Edison stated that the draft decision (DD) incorrectly asserted that Edison's holding company, Edison International (EIX), as well as the other utility holding companies, all deny being bound by the conditions to which they agreed incident to the Commission's approval of their respective holding companies decisions. Edison stated that EIX contends only this: if the Commission believes that EIX has failed to satisfy a condition of the contract approved in the holding company decision, the Commission's recourse is in court. Edison explained that because EIX is not a utility, its accept
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 3, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: On July 2, 2001, Bruce Foster of Southern California Edison Company (Edison) met with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Also present was David Gamson, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, and Michael Hoover of Edison. Edison stated that the draft decision (DD) incorrectly asserted that Edison?s holding company, Edison International (EIX), as well as the other utility holding companies, all deny being bound by the conditions to which they agreed incident to the Commission's approval of their respective holding companies decisions. Edison stated that EIX contends only this: if the Commission believes that EIX has failed to satisfy a condition of the contract approved in the holding company decision, the Commission's recourse is in court. Edison explained that because EIX is not a utility, its acceptance of the holding company conditions creates not a regulatory relationship with the Commission, but instead, a contractual relationship, and a breach of that contract must be redressed in court. Edison asserted that the C
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
July 2, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
Summary: On June 27, 2001, Joseph Malkin, attorney of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, representing PG&E Corporation, met with Cmmr. Wood in San Francisco. Also present was Robert Cagen of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Frederick Brown, attorney of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, representing PG&E Corporation, Shirley Woo, attorney, and Brice Bowen, Director of Regulatory Analysis, for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Matthew Freedman, The Utility Reform Network, Bruce Foster and Mike Hoover, Southern California Edison Company, Jeff Bleich, attorney of Munger, Tolles & Olson, representing Edison International Corporation, Theresa Mueller, attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, Edward Remedios, BHR & Associates, C. Susie Berlin and Grant Kolling, attorneys for the City of Palo Alto, David Sikes of Milbank, Tweed, Judy Peck and Lisa Hubbard of Sempra Energy, representing San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Thomas Hixson of McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP. Referring the draft
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
June 27, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of grant of request for ex parte meeting
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to ALJ's 6/5/2001 ruling
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Data;
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
to Assigned ALJ Ruling re: Discovery
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Assigned ALJ Ruling re: Discovery.
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
June 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of Availability of Responses to ALJ's Data Request.
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
June 22, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of grant of request for ex parte meeting
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
|
|
Description:
Comments on June 6, 2001 Draft Decision of ALJ Thomas in Response to Holding Companies' motions to dismiss.
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
on draft decision
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/CAGEN/CHAMBERLAIN/LEAVENGOOD/PUC
|
|
Description:
on the draft decision regarding jurisdiction
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
Description:
on draft decision on motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
on draft decision of ALJ Thomas on motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
for official notice (Special Appearance)
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
on draft decision on motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Special Appearance)
|
Type:
DRAFT DECISION
|
Filing Date:
June 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/THOMAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
[on motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction] mailed 6/6/2001 (Per Chief ALJ Carew: Comments shall be filed and received by 6/12/2001; no reply comments will be accepted.)
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
June 5, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/THOMAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
directs SCE and Edison International to supplement discovery responses and produce additional documents and information per Section 2(A) of the ruling by 6/15/2001, to respond to new Requests Nos.12-19 of Section 2(B) by 6/25/2001. Directs PG&E, SDG&E and SCE to respond to new Request No.20 of Section 2(C) by 6/25/2001.
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
June 5, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for order accepting its testimony and its Reservation of Rights and Objections in compliance with the automatic 60 day extension under 11 U.S.C. Sec.108 b; testimony, Reservation of Rights and Objections attached.
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
May 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
Special appearance to request rehearing on categorization
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Reply brief (on preliminary legal issues)
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
Description:
Reply brief on Phase One legal issues
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY OF LONG BEACH
|
|
Description:
Reply brief regarding the "first priority" condition
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/CAGEN/PUC
|
|
Description:
Reply brief on the meaning of the "first priority" condition
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply brief (pursuant to 4/30/2001ACR)
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply brief on "first priority" condition
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
Reply brief on legal issues pursuant to Assigned Cmmr.'s Ruling (Special Appearance)
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply brief on legal issues for first priority condition
|
Type:
MISCELLANEOUS FILING
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
Joinder of reply brief of Southern California Edison Company on "first priority" condition (special appearance)
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
May 23, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
Supplemental request for official notice (special appearance)
|
Type:
PETITION
|
Filing Date:
May 22, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
|
|
Description:
Petition to Intervene.
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
May 21, 2001
|
Filed By:
AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE
|
|
Description:
of intent to claim compensation
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Brief on First Priority Condition.
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Opening Brief.
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/CAGEN/CHAMBERLAIN/LEAVENGOOD/PUC
|
|
Description:
opening; on the meaning of the 'first priority' condition
|
Type:
MISCELLANEOUS FILING
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
joinder on brief of Edison on first priority condition
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY OF LONG BEACH
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to the April 30, 2001 ruling]
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on legal issues for first priority condition
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
opening
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
on legal issues pursuant to assigned commissioner's ruling (special appearance)
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
for official notice (special appearance)
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
Description:
on legal issues
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 14, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/CAGEN/PUC
|
|
Description:
Jurisdictional brief
|
DECISIONS
Number of Decisions: 8
|
Decision Number:
D0505005
|
Rendered Date:
May 5, 2005
Effective Date:
May 5, 2005
|
|
Description:
Closes I01-04-002, A87-05-007, and A94-11-013. (Comr. Bohn recused himself from this agenda item and was not part of the quorum in its consideration.)
|
Decision Number:
D0210056
|
Rendered Date:
October 24, 2002
Effective Date:
October 24, 2002
|
|
Description:
Awards TURN $50,233.56 for its contribution to D02-01-037 and D02-01-039 as set forth..
|
Decision Number:
D0207043
|
Rendered Date:
July 17, 2002
Effective Date:
July 17, 2002
|
|
Description:
Modifies D02-01-039 as set forth. Denies rehearing of D02-01-039 in all other respects. (Com Peevey abstained.)
|
Decision Number:
D0207044
|
Rendered Date:
July 17, 2002
Effective Date:
July 17, 2002
|
|
Description:
Denies rehearing of D02-01-037 as modified herein. (Com Peevey abstained.)
|
Decision Number:
D0201037
|
Rendered Date:
January 9, 2002
Effective Date:
January 9, 2002
|
|
Description:
Denies the repondent holding companies' motions to dismiss. (Comrs Duque and Bilas will file a joint dissent; Comr Brown will file a concurrence).
|
Decision Number:
D0201039
|
Rendered Date:
January 9, 2002
Effective Date:
January 9, 2002
|
|
Description:
Interprets the "first priority" condition incorporated into the decisions approving the holding company systems of Respondents PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E, as well as their respective parent holding companies, PG&E Corporation, Edison International, and Sempra Energy. PG&E Corporation is dismissed without prejudice as a respondent to these proceedings. (Comrs Duque and Bilas dissented; Comr Brown will file a concurrence).
|
Decision Number:
D0106031
|
Rendered Date:
June 14, 2001
Effective Date:
June 14, 2001
|
|
Description:
Denies a Public Utilities Code Section 1701.1(a) request for rehearing by PG&E Corporation related to the categorization of this proceeding.
|
Decision Number:
D0105061
|
Rendered Date:
May 14, 2001
Effective Date:
May 14, 2001
|
|
Description:
Interim Opinion - Recategorizes this proceeding from the quasi-legislative to the ratesetting category.
|