Discussion

We agree that the language in question in D.01-01-043 is overly broad and should be modified. ¹ Because the property will continue to be owned by SCE as utility operating property, SCE provides a logical rationale for limiting the restriction on recovery of environmental claims, and defense of such claims, to claims relating to the activities or tenancy of Katella. Furthermore, no party objects to SCE's petition. Therefore, we will grant SCE's petition and modify D.01-01-043, with a few slight modifications to SCE's proposed language.

First, SCE proposes a new Ordering Paragraph 3 that eliminates the second sentence of the current order. The paragraph in question currently states:

"Approval of this lease is conditioned upon compliance by lessee with all applicable environmental regulations. Any modifications to the lease agreement or subsequent changes to the use of the property shall be presented to the Commission for approval and review under the CEQA, as necessary. Should environmental claims be made on SCE subsequent to the sale, SCE shall not seek recovery of any cost of the claims or defense of the claims from its ratepayers."

We do not wish to drop the second sentence of this ordering paragraph, and indeed, SCE's petition provides no rationale for deleting this sentence. Therefore, we will leave the first two sentences of the ordering paragraph intact and modify only the third sentence of this ordering paragraph.

Second, we will simplify SCE's proposed language so that the new third sentence of the ordering paragraph will read as follows:

Should environmental claims, in whole or in part, related to the tenancy or activities of the lessee be made on SCE subsequent to the execution of the lease, SCE shall not seek recovery of any such claims, or defense of such claims, from ratepayers.

We will also make this change to the third full paragraph on page 11 of the opinion.