|
Number of Documents: 149
|
|
|
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 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, 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 that the interpretation of First
Priority Condition in the draft decision (DD) would turn the ratepayer
indifference standard into a ratepayer benefit, a condition SDG&E would have
rejected. Reed noted 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, 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 dismissal of PG&E Corp. from the case.
|
|
|
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 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 Commission may not divest state courts of the power to decide
these matters.
|
|
|
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 Commission may not divest state courts of the power to decide
these matters.
|
|
|
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 decision (DD), Malkin stated that it begins with an
erroneous premise - that PG&E Corporation does not accept the validity of the
Commission's holding company conditions. Malkin explained that PG&E Corporation
does accept that those holding company conditions are binding, but that they
are contractual in nature. Malkin stated that in accepting the conditions, PG&E
Corporation did not agree that it is a public utility, yet the DD errs in
ignoring the distinction between the utility and the holding company. Malkin
stated further that the DD's assertion that the Commission could ignore the
corporations' separate identities without regard to any principle of piercing
the corporate veil was legally incorrect.
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
May 14, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Reply brief on jurisdictional issues
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
May 11, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on Alternate Draft Decision of Cmmr. Bilas on categorization
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 11, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Comments on Alternate Order of Commissioner Bilas.
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
May 10, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
of intent to claim compensation
|
|
|
Type:
ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 7, 2001
|
Filed By:
CMMR/BILAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
Draft Decision mailed 5/7/2001 (Per Chief ALJ Carew: Comments are due by
5/11/2001; there will be no reply comments.)
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
May 7, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
to accept late-filed testimony; testimony attached
|
|
|
Type:
TESTIMONY
|
Filing Date:
May 4, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
of Jay Dore, Martin Gellen, and Stanley W. Hulett (pursuant to Ordering
Paragraph 7 of OII.)
|
|
|
Type:
COMPLIANCE FILING
|
Filing Date:
May 4, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Testimony.
|
|
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
May 2, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
for extension of briefing schedule
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
April 30, 2001
|
Filed By:
CMMR/LYNCH/PUC
|
|
Description:
Requires parties to file briefs not exceeding 5,000 words on preliminary legal
issues; opening briefs due by 5/7/2001, reply briefs due by 5/14. Directs
non-Respondents to file by 5/14/2001reply briefs not exceeding 5,000 words on
the jurisdictional motions/objections of Respondents and their parent holding
companies. Sets an initial schedule: Discovery by parties - 4/20/2001 and
continuing; Decision on proceeding categorization - 5/3; Filing of briefs,
reply briefs as above stated.
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
April 25, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of Availability for PG&E;s April 25, 2001 Production
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
April 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
April 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
concerning motions subject to OP6
|
|
|
Type:
OBJECTION
|
Filing Date:
April 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
to OIR
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Ordering Paragraph 6 of the OII: Reservation of rights and objections to the
OII
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
April 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
to dismiss and objections [to OII]
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
April 24, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to April 11th ruling]; special appearance
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
GOLDEN STATE POWER COOPERATIVE
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
Description:
pursuant to the April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to the April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to April 11, 20001 ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to the April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/CAGEN/PUC
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to the April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY OF LONG BEACH
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to the April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 18, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
[pursuant to April 11th ruling]
|
|
|
Type:
OBJECTION
|
Filing Date:
April 16, 2001
|
Filed By:
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
|
|
Description:
to Proceeding Categorization
|
|
|
Type:
MISCELLANEOUS FILING
|
Filing Date:
April 16, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
declaration of service [of appeal of categorization on April 13, 2001]
|
|
|
Type:
APPEAL
|
Filing Date:
April 16, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
to Initial Categorization as Quasi-Legislative
|
|
|
Type:
APPEAL
|
Filing Date:
April 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
|
|
Description:
of Categorization
|
|
|
Type:
APPEAL
|
Filing Date:
April 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
PG&E CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
of Categorization; special appearance
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
April 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Notice od Availability of Response and Compliance Filing to OII Data Request.
|
|
|
Type:
COMPLIANCE FILING
|
Filing Date:
April 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Response and Compliance Filing to OII Data Request.
|
|
|
Type:
APPEAL
|
Filing Date:
April 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
of Categorization
|
|
|
Type:
APPEAL
|
Filing Date:
April 13, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of Categorization for OII
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 11, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION
|
|
Description:
to information and documents requested in attachment A to OII
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
April 11, 2001
|
Filed By:
CMMR/LYNCH/PUC
|
|
Description:
sets a prehearing conference on 4/20/2001; requires all parties to file/serve
by 4/18/2001 PHC statements. Waives 10 days notice requirement under Rule 52.
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
April 10, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of availability
|
|
|
Type:
SUPPLEMENT
|
Filing Date:
April 10, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to data request [responses]
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 9, 2001
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for information and documents requested in Attachment A to Order Instituting
Investigation 01-04-002
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 9, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Response and Compliance Filing to OII Data Request.
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
April 9, 2001
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Notice of Availability of Response and Compliance Filing to OII Data Request.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 9, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to data request [contained in March 29, 2001 ruling in A00-11-038, et al.]
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
April 9, 2001
|
Filed By:
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
|
|
Description:
to data request [contained in March 29, 2001 ruling in A00-11-038, et al.]
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
April 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
CMMR/LYNCH/PUC
|
|
Description:
rules that all documents called for in A.00-10-045, A.00-11-038 and I.01-04-002
shall be filed/served by 4/16/2001 provided Respondents file/serve a
non-objection statement by 4/9/2001, failing which they shall be bound by the
4/9/2001 due date for producing documents in A.00-10-045 and A.00-11-038.
Denies PG&E's Motion for an extension to 4/30/2001. Indicates no further
extensions will be granted.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
|
Filing Date:
April 3, 2001
|
Filed By:
PUC
|
|
Description:
Order Instituting Investigation whether Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and their
respective holding companies, PG&E Corporation, Edison International, and
Sempra Energy, respondents, have violated relevant statutes and Commission
decisions, and whether changes should be made to rules, orders, and conditions
pertaining to respondents' holding company systems.
|
|
|
Type:
PRIMARY PARTICIPANT
|
Filing Date:
April 3, 2001
|
Filed By:
PUC
|
|
Description:
Respondent
|