Discussion

The ALJ's ruling expressly relies on Section 1708. Under that section, "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 decision made by it." (Emphasis added.) The gravamen of UDI's motion is that the ALJ's ruling changes D.99-06-079's new ratepayer subsidy of developers. Contrary to UDI's assertion, the ALJ's ruling does not change that outcome, but it sets in motion the statutorily prescribed process by which the Commission can choose to, or not to, rescind, alter, or amend its decision.

As stated above, there is a pending petition for modification regarding the free inspection issue. The Commission has long recognized that petitions for modification are the proper vehicle for bringing policy questions to the Commission's attention. E.g. "Petitions for modification are always timely and have as their agenda a request that the Commission revisit the policy choices or other matters of discretionary determination." Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into the matter of post-retirement benefits (1996) D.96-08-035, 67 CPUC2d 493, 494. Also, See OII Competition for Local Exchange Service (1997) D.96-08-035, 74 CPUC2d 582, 583. The ALJ's ruling simply sets in motion the process for gathering the evidence so that the Commission can revisit its policy choices in an informed fashion. Also, the ALJ's ruling accords completely with the role set forth for the ALJ in PHCs in Rule 49, and is within his authority as a presiding officer under Rule 63 (e.g., "The presiding officer may take such other action as may be necessary and appropriate to the discharge of his or her duties, consistent with the statutory or other authorities under which the Commission functions and with the rules of the Commission.")

Lastly, UDI is reminded that while Rule 65 authorizes the presiding officer, at his or her discretion, and in defined extraordinary circumstances, to refer evidentiary rulings to the Commission, there is no provision in the Public Utilities Code or in the Commission's rules which permits an interlocutory appeal of a presiding officer's ruling. Moreover, it is well established that interlocutory appeals of presiding officer's rulings on procedural and evidentiary matters are disfavored by the Commission. See Re. Alternative Regulatory Frameworks for Local Exchange Carriers D.94-08-028 (1994) 55 CPUC2d 672, 676; Joint Application of Pacific Enterprises, et al. (1998) D.98-03-073, p. 126; and Application of Southern California Edison Company (2000) D.00-05-018, p. 5. For the reasons setforth above, UDI's petition should be denied.