VII. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

PG&E claims that the entire process leading up to the Accounting Decision has been devoid of any meaningful process. PG&E cites several examples, including (1) the refusal to consider whether the rate freeze was over during the late December hearings, (2) the short time period allowed for filing testimony and conducting the hearings, (3) the refusal to allow meaningful cross-examination of the independent auditors, (4) the timing of the draft decision, which was issued 24 hours before the final vote, (5) the insertion of new language in the final version with no opportunity for comment, which requires PG&E to forward money to DWR that it has yet to collect in rates, and (6) the decision to impose certain losses on the utilities by rewriting the accounting rules after the fact, while at the same time removing any of the benefits of AB 1890.

These arguments are not convincing. We determined that we were not prepared to perform the necessary evaluations to find that the requirements of AB 1890 for ending the rate control period have been met. PG&E fails to demonstrate how this violates its due process rights. Moreover, it was urgent to conduct hearings on these proposals as quickly as possible, given the Utilities' claims of financial distress and the need to safeguard the state's energy supply.

PG&E fails to provide any authority to support its argument concerning the 24-hour comment period on the proposed decision. Although 24 hours is a short period for comments, PG&E is well aware that the State of California and the energy utilities have been in a time of crisis, and that it has been necessary to expedite many of the decisions the Commission has issued. Also, the Utilities had ample opportunity to analyze and comment on these issues in prior filings in this proceeding, including Concurrent Briefs filed on March 5, 2001, and the Utilities' responses to TURN's petition to modify Resolution E-3527.

Finally, the fact that PG&E may not like the outcome of the Accounting Decision does not amount to a due process violation. As explained elsewhere in this memo, PG&E's arguments concerning the adoption of TURN's accounting proposal and what PG&E characterizes as the removal of any of the benefits of AB 1890 are without merit.