XII. Restatements of Law and Statutory Requirements
Several of our rules merely reference or restate statutory requirements, or restate otherwise applicable rules of law. We propose to repeal these rules. In addition to being unnecessary to effect their provisions, their restatement in the Rules of Practice and Procedure is confusing to the extent that they provide only a partial statement of applicable law. We also propose to repeal rules which merely state the purpose of other rules.
Most notably, we propose to repeal the substantial portions of Rule 17.1 which simply restate the statutory and regulatory requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
We propose to repeal Rule 76.73, which provides that a customer seeking intervenor compensation may include the reasonable costs incurred as a result of an application for rehearing. This rule does not adequately reflect the extent of compensable costs provided by Pub. Util. Code § 1802(a), which allows compensation for the reasonable costs of obtaining judicial review.
These and other similarly proposed modifications are reflected in the following table:
Affected rule: |
New rule: |
Rule 1.2 |
Rule 13.14 |
Rule 17.1 |
Rule 2.4 Rule 2.5 |
Rule 17.3 |
Rule 2.4 |
Rule 45(a) |
[repeal] |
Rule 47(h) |
[repeal] |
Rule 63.1 |
[repeal] |
Rule 76.73 |
[repeal] |
Rule 86.3(b) |
[repeal] |
