3. Discussion
3.1. Requirements for Revising a Commission Decision
Public Utilities Code § 17084 provides that the Commission, after appropriate notice, may alter one of its prior decisions:
The commission may at any time, upon notice to the parties, and with opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of complaints, rescind, alter, or amend any order or decision made by it. Any order rescinding, altering, or amending a prior order or decision shall, when served upon the parties, have the same effect as an original order or decision. (§ 1708)
A petition for modification is the procedural vehicle specifically designed to ask the Commission to revise a prior decision and is the vehicle most commonly used for that purpose. Rule 16.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure governs such petitions.5 Functionally, a petition for modification is similar to a motion under Rule 11.1. The primary differences are that a motion can be used to seek various kinds of relief during the pendency of a proceeding; typically, though not always, a motion is directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), rather than the Commission; and generally, a motion prescribes a shorter timeline for responses.
We will construe SCE's motion for clarification as Rule 16.4 petition, since the clarification it seeks would narrow the stay ordered in D.11-11-020 and only the Commission may revise D.11-11-020 in that way. Since the motion is unopposed (responses were due on March 5, 2011 and none were filed)6 and since further delay would unreasonably interfere with the construction schedule, we will deem the petition to be unopposed, and will not require the full 30-day response period provided for under Rule 16.4(f). We do so consistent with Rule 1.2, which allows us to liberally construe our Rules in the interests of "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the issues" and to allow deviations from the Rules "[i]n special cases and for good cause shown."
SCE's motion meets the primary requirements for a petition for modification set forth in Rule 16.4(b) and (c) since it clearly specifies the justification for the relief requested, clearly words the relief sought, has been filed and served on all parties to the proceeding, and less than a year has passed since the Commission issued D.11-11-020.
We should find that SCE has met the procedural requirements for a Rule 16.4 petition.
3.2. Nature of Relief Requested
SCE contends that the stay ordered by D.11-11-020 is overbroad and argues that a narrower stay should be fashioned to preserve the status quo regarding the issues of concern to Chino Hills without halting all construction work in Segment 8A areas outside of the city. Specifically, SCE states:
Certain TRTP construction work in Segment 8A in areas outside of Chino Hills and unaffected by the potential selection of any of the Alternatives remains critical to the completion of TRTP Segment 8 (Segment 8) and to the delivery of renewable power to California. This work would all take place west of Mile Post (MP) 19 (approximately two (2) miles west of Chino Hills' city boundaries) and would remain in the substantially same form and location as originally engineered regardless of whether or not there were modifications to the Approved Chino Hills Route or if one of the Alternatives were mandated. [fn omitted] [reference omitted] SCE's requested clarification of the Order will allow SCE to undertake these important components of TRTP and minimize delays to the completion of the Project.7
No public purpose is served by continuing imposition of a stay that SCE has shown to be overbroad. We should modify D.11-11-020 to stay only that portion of Segment 8A potentially implicated by the as yet unresolved issues raised by Chino Hills.
4 All subsequent references to statute mean the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise specified.
5 All subsequent references to rules mean the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise specified.
6 Because the motion was filed on February 17, 2012, any responses were to be filed and served within 15 days thereafter, and because day 15 was a Saturday, the filing deadline for responses was March 5, 2012.
7 SCE motion at 3.
