Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the assigned ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties on December 28, 2004, in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. The draft decision ordered that GO 77-L not be amended, and included a requirement that Tier 1 utilities should provide the Commission an electronic copy of all GO 77 reports, as well as their SEC Proxy Statements, for posting on the Commission's web-site. Comments were filed on January 18, 2005 by PG&E and Greenlining. Reply comments were filed on January 24, 2005 by Edison, Verizon, SBC, and jointly by SDG&E and SoCalGas.

Greenlining disagrees with the draft decision and supports adding the requirements of holding company and executive bonuses to GO 77. Greenlining states that such reporting would curb excessive compensation, prevent unreasonable "golden parachutes" for retiring executives and allow for better use of new technologies. These arguments are generally without merit, were previously denied or go beyond the scope and intent of GO 77.

Greenlining also recommends that the Commission follow the reporting requirements now specific to PG&E (as directed in D.04-05-055) in developing general requirements in GO 77. In addition to reporting holding company executive compensation and bonuses awarded, these requirements include providing an internet site-link to SEC executive compensation documents as an attachment to the annual GO 77 report.

PG&E is generally opposed to any internet posting of these reports, but concludes that any employee-specific information should be redacted from GO 77 reports before being posted in the Commission web-site. In addition to employee names, PG&E also recommends that job titles be shown in generic, rather than descriptive, terms to better protect individuals with unique job titles.

In replies, the other five Tier 1 utilities oppose Greenlining's request to include any additional requirements in GO 77-L. These utilities also generally state that internet posting of GO 77 reports is beyond the scope of this proceeding and that no opportunity was given for comment on this issue, but support PG&E's position that employee-specific information should be redacted if internet posting is made. No parties opposed providing an internet site-link to SEC executive compensation reports.

Subsequent to mailing the draft decision, we addressed the issue of confidentiality and accessibility of GO 77 reports in D.05-04-030 that states the names of all individuals may be redacted from GO 77 reports. This decision, however, is silent regarding internet posting of GO 77 reports.

After considering the issues and above comments, and for consistency with D.04-05-055, we amend the draft decision to the extent that Tier 1 utilities will be required to include an internet site-link to all executive compensation documents filed with the SEC in future GO 77 reports, instead of provide their GO 77 reports for posting on the Commission's web-site. We may choose to post the SEC documents on the Commission's web-site in the future.