I. INTRODUCTION

In Decision (D.) 10-05-050 (or "Decision"), we resolved the City and County of San Francisco's ("CCSF's") petition to modify D.05-12-041,¹ which finalized procedures for implementing community choice aggregation ("CCA")² programs. Among other things, the Decision modified D.05-12-041 to make clear that if Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E"), San Diego Gas & Electric Company ("SDG&E"), or Southern California Edison Company ("Edison") engage in commercial speech concerning CCA service and the utility's competing service that is untrue or misleading, they may be liable for penalties and subject to a temporary restraining order ("TRO") or preliminary injunction in a complaint before the Commission.

PG&E and CCSF both timely filed applications for rehearing of the Decision. PG&E's rehearing application alleges the following legal errors: (1) the Decision violates PG&E's rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution by regulating PG&E's commercial speech but not regulating the commercial speech of CCAs; (2) the Decision exceeds the Commission's jurisdiction as Public Utilities Code section 701³ does not grant the Commission authority to regulate the utilities' commercial speech; and (3) the Decision violates section 310's restriction on delegation of the Commission's statutory duties.

CCSF's rehearing application alleges that: (1) the Decision errs in finding that section 366.2(c)(9) does not require the utilities to refrain from marketing against CCAs; (2) the Decision errs in finding that CCSF's request to ban any anti-CCA marketing by the utilities violates the First Amendment; and (3) the Decision violates Article III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution by effectively declaring section 366.2(c)(9) unenforceable.

CCSF, the Marin Energy Authority, and the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority ("SJVPA") jointly filed a response to PG&E's rehearing application. PG&E filed a response to CCSF's rehearing application.

We have reviewed each and every argument raised in the rehearing applications and are of the opinion that modifications, as described herein, are warranted to: (1) delete the statement that CCAs are subject to Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500; and (2) include a fuller explanation of the bases for the Commission's authority to allow an individual Commissioner or administrative law judge ("ALJ") to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction subject to ratification or reversal by the full Commission. Rehearing of D.10-05-050, as modified, is denied.

¹ Decision Resolving Phase 2 Issues on Implementation of Community Choice Aggregation Program and Related Matters [D.05-12-041] (2005) ___ Cal.P.U.C.3d ___.

² "CCA" also refers to a community choice aggregator, i.e., the entity providing the CCA procurement service.

³ All subsequent section references are to the Public Utilities Code, as amended by Senate Bill 790 (Stats. 2011, ch. 599) ("SB 790"), unless otherwise specified.