III. Procedural Background
ORA filed this complaint on August 25, 2000, and Pacific filed a timely answer on October 20, 2000. In its answer, Pacific challenged ORA's standing to file the complaint.
The Commission held a prehearing conference (PHC) on November 6, 2000. At the PHC, the parties were directed, among other things, to brief the issue of ORA's standing. After the PHC, Pacific also filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that ORA lacked standing and that the proper forum for ORA to raise its arguments was in the advice letter process.
On December 4, 2000, Assigned Commissioner Wood issued the Scoping Memo, which designated Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Econome as the presiding officer. The Scoping Memo also granted The Utility Reform Network (TURN) intervenor status.3 On December 18, 2000, the ALJ issued a ruling denying Pacific's motion to dismiss, ruling that ORA had standing to bring this complaint and that many of the issues ORA raised in the complaint went beyond those addressed in the advice letter process.
The Commission held evidentiary hearings on February 26 and 27, 2001, and the case was submitted on April 6, 2001 with the filing of reply briefs.
3 TURN was permitted to intervene to assist, but not duplicate, ORA's efforts. However, after intervention was granted, TURN did not participate in either the evidentiary hearings or briefing.
