3. Discussion
After PG&E filed this petition, the Commission initiated an investigation (Investigation (I.) 01-12-010) and related order to show cause to consider whether PG&E and its officers and employees failed to comply with D.01-10-059, whether they should be held in contempt, and whether they should be subject to penalties provided in the Public Utilities Code. PG&E proposed to resolve all the issues raised in that proceeding by, among other things, agreeing to tender an NOI for a TY 2003 GRC on or before April 15, 2002.1 We approved PG&E's proposal in I.01-12-010 by D.02-04-018 dated April 4, 2002. We note that parties in this proceeding were provided with notice and opportunity to be heard on PG&E's proposal to tender an NOI for a TY 2003 GRC on or before April 15, 2002. We further note that no party stated any objection to the proposal.
In its petition, PG&E seeks to have the Commission sponsor a workshop and comment process to consider alternatives to the requirement of D.01-10-059 that the Company tender an NOI for a TY 2003 GRC on or before November 14, 2001. However, our subsequent approval of PG&E's uncontested proposal that it tender the NOI on or before April 15, 2002 in effect supersedes PG&E's request in the instant petition, and renders it moot. Since PG&E has been ordered by the Commission to tender an NOI for a TY 2003 GRC on or before April 15, 2002, and no party in this proceeding has stated any objection to that requirement, no reasonable purpose would be served by convening a workshop or providing for comments to further explore this requirement.
PG&E also seeks to have the proposed workshop address its asserted need for attrition for the years 2002 and beyond. Since D.01-10-059 provided for a separate comment process on the need for attrition for 2002, and the question of attrition for future years can and should be addressed in the 2003 GRC, we will not order Energy Division to convene a workshop on this issue.2
Finally, PG&E requests that the proposed workshop and comments address the need for a "rational schedule" for the GRC. We understand PG&E's request to pertain to its determination that it was impossible for it to tender an NOI for a TY 2003 20 days after having been ordered to do so. Again, this issue is resolved by D.02-04-018 and is therefore moot.
However, we find that another aspect of the schedule that we adopted in D.01-10-059 should be modified in order to yield a "rational schedule." Ordering Paragraph 4 of that decision established a goal of processing the 2003 GRC on an expedited basis so that new rates could be in place by January 1, 2003. We found that in view of the time required to process a GRC, that was the earliest feasible opportunity to review the reasonableness of PG&E's rates. (D.01-10-059, Finding of Fact 2.) Because the deadline for PG&E to tender the NOI for its TY 2003 GRC has been deferred by five months, from November 14, 2001 to April 15, 2002, we find and conclude that the goal for processing the GRC should be modified accordingly.3
In its comments on the draft decision, PG&E raises a concern about the draft decision's provision for changing the date for having new rates in place from January 1, 2003 to June 1, 2003. PG&E does not dispute the rationale underlying the draft decision's proposed change, viz., to enable the Commission to process PG&E's 2003 GRC based on a more "rational schedule." However, PG&E is concerned that it might be precluded from requesting adoption of an interim GRC revenue requirement effective January 1, 2003. PG&E states that it intends to file a motion for such interim relief, and points out that in D.00-07-050, the Commission invited PG&E to request such interim relief effective January 1, 2002 for PG&E's then-scheduled 2002 GRC. PG&E also notes that in D.98-12-078, the Commission granted interim relief effective January 1, 1999 for PG&E's 1999 GRC.
While we do not believe it is reasonable to expect that an entire GRC could be processed within a five-month period, and we are revising our stated expectations accordingly, we do not intend by this decision to preclude PG&E from requesting an interim relief mechanism for its TY 2003 GRC similar to that adopted in D.98-12-078 for its TY 1999 GRC. We will clarify our intent by deleting the language in D.01-10-059 that refers to having "new rates in place" and replacing it with language that refers to completing the processing of the GRC.
1 PG&E also agreed to pay a penalty of $500 per day beginning January 9, 2002 and continuing each day until it tenders its NOI. PG&E tendered the NOI to the Commission on April 15, 2002. 2 In response to D.01-10-059, comments on the need for an attrition increase were filed by PG&E and jointly by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, The Utility Reform Network, and James Weil (collectively, Consumers) on November 9, 2001. Neither PG&E nor Consumers suggested in their respective comments that workshops be held. PG&E requested that it be authorized to file an advice letter to implement a 2002 attrition increase. 3 D.01-10-059 provides for a period of approximately 106 days after PG&E tenders its NOI for filing of the GRC application. (D.01-10-059, Ordering Paragraph 2.) Therefore, the GRC application might not be filed until on or about July 30, 2002. It would clearly be unreasonable to suggest that the GRC be litigated and a final Commission decision rendered less than five months later in December 2002.
