4. Revised Draft Decision and 2nd Neeper Alternate
The ALJ's revised draft decision in this matter was mailed to the parties on December 17, 1999, and comments were filed on January 6, 2000, by PG&E and Edison. Commissioner Neeper offered an alternate to the revised draft decision (2nd Neeper alternate), which was mailed to the parties on December 29, 1999. Comments on the 2nd Neeper alternate were filed by Sempra, PG&E, and Edison on January 13, 2000.
The 2nd Neeper alternate and the revised draft decision differ in only one respect. Both the 2nd Neeper alternate and the revised draft decision contain the same definition of "alternate" as that term is used in SB 779. However, under the 2nd Neeper alternate, even substantive changes that are not "alternates" generally would be made available for public review and comment. The 2nd Neeper alternate also contains separate provisions for reduction or waiver of the comment period for this class of substantive changes.
Consistent with their positions in earlier comments, Sempra, PG&E, and Edison prefer a different definition of "alternate," namely, the variant definition on which we invited comment in D.99-11-052. PG&E supports the variant definition in its entirety; Sempra and Edison dislike even that definition to the extent that it would allow the Commission to bypass a further period of public review and comment if a substantive change "does no more than make changes suggested in prior comments [or] in a prior alternate...." However, PG&E and Edison make clear that they prefer the 2nd Neeper alternate to the revised draft decision. Sempra says that the 2nd Neeper alternate is "far more consistent with...SB 779" but that the changes made by the 2nd Neeper alternate "add at least as many difficulties as they solve." In short, commenters offer only grudging support for the approach taken in the 2nd Neeper alternate, and then only to the extent that the 2nd Neeper alternate would result, in effect, in public review and comment substantially identical to that provided pursuant to the variant definition of "alternate" in D.99-11-052.
We adopt the revised draft decision in preference to the 2nd Neeper alternate. Our reasons for doing so are basically the same as our reasons for rejecting the variant definition of "alternate" (see Section 3.2 above). Specifically, the rules we are adopting today avoid unnecessary delay and repetition of arguments, thereby enabling us to bring our proceedings to a timely conclusion while giving adequate opportunity for public review and comment in our decisionmaking process.
Findings of Fact
1. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as proposed to be amended in the OIR, and with certain modifications proposed in D.99-11-052, would reasonably implement the provisions of SB 779, specifically, Public Utilities Code § 311(g), for public review and comment regarding certain Commission decisions. The proposed amendments are shown in Appendix A to today's decision.
2. Upon review of the comments and replies to comments received in this rulemaking, it is reasonable to adopt the amendments shown in Appendix A.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Commission's Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action was duly submitted to the Office of Administrative Law and printed in the California Regulatory Notice Register dated February 26, 1999 (Register 99, No. 9-Z, p. 406).
2. The modifications proposed and made available in D.99-11-052 are sufficiently related to the original rulemaking proposal that a 15-day comment period is appropriate.
3. The originally proposed amendment to the definition of "alternate" in existing Rule 77.6(a) is consistent with historical usage of the term at the Commission when SB 779 was enacted, and is also consistent with legislative policies expressed in SB 779 (enacted in 1998) and SB 960 (enacted in 1996).
4. The Commission should adopt the amendments to Article 19 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure shown in Appendix A.
5. In order to provide guidance as soon as possible to all persons concerned with the Commission's decision-making process, this decision should be effective immediately.
6. This rulemaking should be closed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The new and amended Rules of Practice and Procedure implementing Senate Bill 779, which rules are shown in Appendix A to today's decision, are adopted.
2. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall take all appropriate steps to submit the newly adopted rules to the Office of Administrative Law, and may
make such format changes as are appropriate for printing the newly adopted rules in the California Code of Regulations.
3. This rulemaking is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated January 20, 2000, at San Francisco, California.
RICHARD A. BILAS
President
HENRY M. DUQUE
LORETTA M. LYNCH
JOSIAH L. NEEPER
CARL W. WOOD
Commissioners
Adopted Amendments to Article 19 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure
This Appendix contains amendments to Article 19 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, as those amendments are adopted in the foregoing decision. For the readers' convenience, we reproduce in the Appendix the whole set of interrelated rules, namely, Rules 77-77.7.
Article 19. Proposed Decisions, Draft Decisions, and Commission Meetings
