VI. Responses to D.99-09-074

PG&E, Edison and ORA, TURN and Enron Corp. (jointly) filed responses or replies. Both PG&E and Edison argue that the Commission acknowledged in D.99-09-033 that the original disclaimer rule violates the First Amendment unless modified. Therefore, they argue that this Rule cannot be lawfully enforced against PG&E. Because the penalty determinations in D.98-11-026 and D.99-03-025 were based on enforcement of an unlawful rule, PG&E argues that the decisions and associated penalty determinations should be vacated. If the Commission decides to reconsider the amount of the penalty, PG&E requests evidentiary hearings.

ORA, TURN and Enron Corp. argue that D.99-09-033 applied only to SDG&E and SoCalGas, and not PG&E. Moreover, D.99-09-033 addressed the content of the disclaimer, and D.98-11-026 and D.99-03-025 penalized PG&E based on the legibility of the disclaimers. According to ORA, TURN and Enron Corp., the penalty should still stand because even if the modified disclaimer were in effect at the time PG&E ran its advertisements, PG&E would still be in violation of the Rules.