7. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

On July 16, 2009, PG&E filed its opening comment requesting modifications to the proposed decision of ALJ, issued on June 26, 2009. (Opening Comment.) The Commission has not received any reply comment.

In general, PG&E supports the proposed decision to adopt the Master Agreement. However, PG&E proposes the following:

1. The decision should include discussion of PG&E's contention that the fast-paced signboard market is time-sensitive, and delays therefore would be detrimental to potential signboard deals;

2. The decision should reflect a clear commitment of the Commission to review the Section 851 review process in the future;

3. The decision should order that the Protective Order remain in effect for three years, and not one year, as PG&E originally requested in its motion;

4. The decision should indicate that the site license fees for electric distribution property should be treated as other operating revenues, and not gain of sales; and

5. The final decision's recitation of the Section 851 standard should read "not adverse to the public interest," and not "in the public interest."

First, we are not entirely persuaded by the Opening Comment recommending additional language concerning time-sensitiveness of the signboard market. We do not find that language to be essential to the decision. To be fair, however, PG&E's application did indicate that to be one of PG&E's main basis for seeking an approval of the proposed expedited Section 851 review process. As such, the modified version of the PG&E's proposed additional language has been incorporated in this decision to fully and correctly reflect PG&E's application which sought approval of the proposed expedited Commission review process in recognition of the fast-paced and time-sensitive nature of the signboard market.

Second, the Opening Comment requesting that the decision reflect a clearer commitment of the Commission to review the Section 851 process in the future is superfluous and therefore denied. The decision adequately details the Commission's proactive interest in this issue and expressly indicates that the Resolution ALJ-202 pilot program is underway to streamline that process. It is also implicit in this decision and explicit in the Resolution ALJ-202 that once the 851 pilot program period ends, the Commission will be revisiting the issue. Beyond that, as suggested by PG&E, if current or future legislative actions result in changes to Sections 851 and/or 853, the Commission must and therefore will review and modify its processes in accordance with any such changes. Thus, PG&E's the proposed additional language will not be adopted in this decision.

Third, the Protective Order will be in effect for one year as originally requested by PG&E in its Motion. PG&E's Motion specifically requested one-year protective period, and while it may be inconvenient for PG&E to file subsequent motion of renewal to extend that time frame, the Motion properly before the Commission in this proceeding sought one year protection. Therefore, this decision confirms that the Protective Order should remain in effect for one year, unless a subsequent motion is granted to extend that time frame as outlined in the Order section of this decision.

PG&E's final two points (items 4 and 5, above) in the Opening Comment (concerning the ratemaking treatment of the site license fees for electric distribution property and recitation of the Section 851 standard as "not adverse to the public interest") are correct. This decision adopts those corrections as proposed by PG&E.