2. Background
On June 27, 2002, the Commission proposed new Rule 14.7 regarding petitions to amend, adopt, or repeal a regulation pursuant to Section 1708.5, to be included in a new Article 3.5 regarding rulemaking in general. Rule 14.7 responds to the requirement of Section 1708.5 that the Commission amend its Rules to provide specific procedures for handling such petitions.
As noted in the OIR, Rule 14.7 allows the public to suggest new or revised regulatory policies to the Commission, but does not apply to proposed changes to the Commission Rules regarding procedural matters. We believe that the legislative intent behind the adoption of Section 1708.5 was to permit regulated utilities and the public to petition the Commission to adopt, amend, or repeal substantive regulations of the Commission.
Under Rule 14.7, a petition must request that the Commission adopt a regulation that has general applicability and future effect. A regulation is generally applicable when it applies to an entire class of entities or activities over which the Commission has jurisdiction. A regulation has future effect when it applies to conduct in the future.
Consistent with the intent of Section 1708.5, as set forth in uncodified Section 1 of Assembly Bill (AB) 301,3 Rule 14.7 does not restrict standing to file a petition. To ensure that potentially affected persons have notice of the petition, Rule 14.7 requires service of the petition broadly. The petitioner, our Public Advisor, and the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) may use existing Commission service lists and other means to identify "interested parties." We also promote effective notice by requiring petitions to include concise justification and specific proposed language for the regulation.
In light of our existing rules for review of Commission decisions, Rule 14.7 provides that we will not entertain petitions for rulemaking on issues that we have addressed in the previous year.
Rule 14.7 does not restrict ex parte communications or impose reporting requirements for such communications in the context of petitions. Historically, we have not imposed restrictions on ex parte communications or any reporting requirements in rulemaking proceedings, and we see no reason to impose such restrictions or requirements here. (See Articles 1.5 and 2.5 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
In order to give notice of these proposed Rule changes, we served the OIR on the service list for this proceeding, which generally includes persons interested in Commission procedural rulemakings, and forwarded a Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action (Notice) to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for publication in the California Regulatory Notice Register. The Notice specified dates by which interested persons could request a public hearing and could file and serve comments and reply comments. The Notice was published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on July 12, 2002.
The Commission has received timely written comments from Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and joint written comments from Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). No one filed reply comments or a request for a public hearing.4
3 AB 301 enacted Section 1708.5. The uncodified declarations of legislative intent in AB 301 (Section 1, Stats. 1999, c.1) state that the Legislature did not intend Section 1708.5 to apply to all Commission decisions and orders, and that the Commission has authority to define the term "regulation" more precisely to implement this statute. The uncodified declarations of legislative intent also provide that the Commission may delegate authority to its staff to deny rulemaking petitions, in order to administer Section 1708.5 efficiently. 4 The public comment period and the period within which interested persons may request a public hearing have expired.
