2.1 Changes to Initially Proposed Rules

Following the comments listed above, the assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a draft decision on July 14, 1999. The recommendation in the ALJ's draft decision was to adopt the rules as initially proposed. Commissioner Neeper prepared an alternate draft decision (Neeper alternate), which was issued on August 25, 1999, and in which Commissioner Neeper solicited comment on certain specific changes to the rules as initially proposed. One such change was a broader definition of "alternate" in Rule 77.6(a). Commissioner Neeper indicated that the Commission wanted further input from the parties on the interpretation of SB 779 before deciding whether to adopt this definition of "alternate" or the definition initially proposed.

A further alternate draft decision, sponsored jointly by Commissioners Bilas and Neeper, was issued on October 6, 1999 (Bilas/Neeper alternate). It solicited comment on the changes proposed in the Neeper alternate (which it superseded) and on additional specific changes. Among the latter was a proposed rule that would allow parties commenting on a decision to provide a "redlined" version of the decision as part of their comments.⁴

On October 21, 1999, Commissioner Duque issued a further alternate draft decision (Duque alternate). Commissioner Duque recommended that the Commission not make any change in its "rules or practices...concerning the practice of redlining." In all other respects, the Duque alternate is consistent with the changes in the Bilas/Neeper alternate. The Commission adopted the Duque alternate, which was then issued as Decision (D.) 99-11-052. Because D.99-11-052 proposes changes to the rules as initially proposed in the OIR and announced in the Register, the Commission provided another 15-day comment period (to December 3, 1999), pursuant to Gov. Code § 11346.8(c).

The draft decision, the successive draft alternate decisions, and D.99-11-052 were each made available for public review and comment. ORA, Roseville, and three energy utilities (PG&E, Sempra, and Edison) commented on the ALJ's draft decision. The same parties commented on the Neeper alternate.⁵ Edison, TURN, and the City and County of San Francisco commented on the Bilas/Neeper alternate, while PG&E and Sempra filed joint comments. TURN and PG&E commented on the Duque alternate. Finally, Edison, GTE, and Sempra commented on D.99-11-052.

Much of the comment on the Bilas/Neeper alternate, the Duque alternate, and D.99-11-052 concerned the merits of "redlining," as discussed above. However, pursuant to D.99-11-052, the Commission is not taking up in this proceeding any rulemaking proposals on redlining. Therefore, we do not discuss in today's decision any of the comments relating to redlining.

⁴ The Bilas/Neeper alternate defines "redlining" as a "convention for highlighting language that someone wants to add to or delete from a document. Typically, the added language is underlined and the deleted language is stricken through. We follow this redlining convention to show the changes we are proposing to our Rules of Practice and Procedure." ⁵ The three energy utilities commented jointly on the Neeper alternate.