3. Timeliness of Petition
Petitions for modification must be filed within one year or, if later, must explain why the petition could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision. We may, at our discretion, summarily deny the petition if the late submission is not justified.9
CPSD filed the petition on July 10, 2007, more than three years after our May 6, 2004 order on GO 167 (D.04-05-018), and more than one year after our January 26, 2006 order on the applications for rehearing (D.06-01-047). Coalition asserts that we should summarily deny the petition. We decline to do so for the following reasons.
First, Coalition asserts that CPSD could have proposed changes within one year of the initial order adopting GO 167, particularly since CPSD's petition, according to Coalition, proposes not only procedural but substantive changes. To the contrary, while CPSD could have filed a petition within one year of our May 2004 order, it was not until our order in January 2006 that certain pending matters were addressed, clarifying program changes were made, and CPSD was directed to make a proposal. Also, we do not agree with Coalition that the proposed changes involve substance. Rather, the proposed changes all fundamentally involve procedure and are consistent with our January 2006 directions.
Second, Coalition argues that the petition is more than one year after the January 2006 order directing CPSD to make a proposal and should, therefore, be summarily denied. We disagree. CPSD correctly points out that the delay was caused, in part, by its efforts to make the GO 167 citation program consistent with two other staff citation programs developed during the same time frame.10 We are also persuaded by CPSD that the delay has not resulted in prejudice to the Coalition, GAOs, or any party to this proceeding. An enforcement process was in place. A delay in considering modifications does not harm the interest of any GAO or party in a way that would justify summary dismissal.
Third, Coalition asserts that consistency with unrelated citation programs cannot be a basis upon which to make the proposed changes, and does not justify a delay in CPSD filing of the petition. Coalition is incorrect. While different industries, entities and Commission Divisions may be involved, our goal is to make the Commission's various enforcement processes as similar as is reasonable and feasible. Coalition minimizes the value of consistency between programs, when such consistency provides an opportunity to increase efficiency for both the Commission and stakeholders. Moreover, Coalition unreasonably discounts the time necessary for CPSD to formulate a proposal and formally file a petition while fulfilling its other vital public health and safety duties.
CPSD reasonably explains why the petition was not filed within one year. Coalition fails to convincingly argue that the petition should be summarily denied. It is reasonable to consider the petition. The petition is timely.
9 Rule 16.4(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
10 Resolution UEB-001 (August 24, 2006, regarding a citation program to enforce compliance with third-party verification requirements in Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5, administered by Telecommunications Division). Also, Resolution E-4017 (October 5, 2006, regarding a citation program to enforce compliance with resource adequacy filing requirements for certain load serving entities, administered by Energy Division).
