V. Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on June 12, 2001, by Sempra. The alternate decision of Commissioner Lynch was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(e) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments by _____________ were filed on _______________, and reply comments by __________________ were filed on _________________.
1. The merger decision (D.98-03-073) authorized the combination of applicants Pacific Enterprises and Enova Corporation into a single entity, Sempra Energy.
2. The merger decision required SDG&E and SoCalGas to retain their existing legal and regulatory status, including name, headquarters, corporate identity, separate capital structure, and existing franchises, permits, tariffs and licenses.
3. Under Sempra's proposed reorganization, key customer-affecting operations of SDG&E and SoCalGas, such as distribution, account management, and customer service, would be integrated under the direction of common officers accountable to the holding company, not to the respective regulated utilities.
4. When it issued the merger decision, the Commission had not considered a proposal that would have integrated the operations of the two regulated utilities and that would have placed those integrated operations under the control of Sempra.
5. Sempra has not shown that the merger decision authorizes the proposed reorganization.
6. Sempra has not even attempted to show that its new proposal would have satisfied the requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 854 if its proposal had been included as part of its original merger application.
7. Sempra will not suffer any undue prejudice if we grant the motion of the CCUE to permit the late-filing of its response to the petition.
1. Sempra's pleading should be treated as a petition for modification of D.98-03-073.
2. Before we can approve Sempra's petition for modification, Sempra must show that its new proposal would have satisfied the requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 854 if its proposal had been included as part of its original merger application.
3. Sempra's petition does not satisfy the requirements of Section 854 and should be denied.
4. CCUE's motion to permit the late filing of its response to the petition should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Petition to Modify Decision 98-03-073 is denied.
2. The request of Coalition of California Utility Employees for leave to file a late response to Sempra Energy's petition is granted.
3. Application 96-10-038 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
