Procedural Background
On November 6, 2001, PG&E filed a "Notice of Withdrawal" of A.01-04-012. The Commission's Docket Office accepted the filing as a "Motion to Withdraw."1 The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) and the California Independent System Operator (ISO) filed responses to the motion to withdraw on November 13, 2001. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) submitted comments on the same day.2 PG&E filed a reply on November 15, 2001 and concurrently stated that it was withdrawing its opening testimony served on September 25, 2001. In the meantime, ORA served its opening testimony on November 8, 2001, and the ISO served rebuttal testimony on November 15, 2001. On November 16, 2001, the Commission cancelled the evidentiary hearings previously scheduled to begin on November 26, 2001.
1 PG&E argues that it has the right to unilaterally withdraw its application, citing 43 CPUC 2d 639, 1992 Cal. PUC LEXIS 340 (April 8, 1992) as the decision which establishes its ability to withdraw as a matter of right. The cited decision clarified that when a matter has been submitted, termination of the case is clearly a matter of discretion on the part of the Commission. However, that decision specifically concluded that "[w]e need not speculate on the possible circumstances which would cause us to regard dismissal or withdrawal as no longer a matter of right." (1992 Cal. PUC LEXIS 340, *3.) Therefore PG&E's reliance on this case is misplaced. In addition, PG&E's own actions in recent cases belie its arguments that it is a matter of right to withdraw in the event that a case has not been submitted. (See, for example, D.01-10-052, which granted PG&E's motion to withdraw A.00-10-031 despite the fact that the case had not been submitted.)
2 Western is not a party to this proceeding and does not seek to intervene by submitting these comments. Western was previously granted information only status in the proceeding.
