2. Procedural Requirement Under Rule 16.4
Rule 16.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) governs the process for the filing and consideration of Petitions for Modification (PFM). Rule 16.4(b) requires that a PFM concisely state the justification for the proposed relief and propose specific wording for all requested modifications. SCE's Petition and Amendment contain concise but thorough statements of justification for the proposed modifications. SCE's Petition and Amendment propose specific wording for all requested modifications. Hence, this requirement has been fulfilled.
Rule 16.4(d) states that if more than one year has elapsed since the effective date of the decision, then the petitions must explain why they could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision. SCE's Petition did not expressly address this issue. However, it is clear from the sum of the discussion throughout the record that the Petition was necessitated by the ACC's denial of SCE's permit to construct the Arizona portion of the Project, SCE's subsequent appeal of that decision, and SCE's inability to remedy this situation in the months that followed. Attachment B to the Supplemental Filing provides a procedural background for the Petition and explains that SCE filed the Petition "in anticipation of obtaining the approvals it needed to construct the Arizona portion of DPV2, and to position itself and the State of California to take advantage of potential generation sources (most of which are renewable) near Blythe, California."20 We find that this is a reasonable justification for the delay.
Hence, we conclude that SCE's Petition and Amendment comply with the requirements of Rule 16.4.
20 Amendment, Attachment B, 2nd paragraph.
