2. Background

On July 6, 1999, Samuel Anderson, PRO Engineering, and Oasis Nuclear, Inc., filed this complaint seeking unspecified injunctive relief and attorney fees against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). In the complaint, Anderson alleged that certain actions by PG&E and its contractor, Corestaff, violated §§ 8281 to 8286,¹ which are commonly referred to as the Women, Minority, Disabled Veterans Business Enterprises (WMDVBE) statute. (Anderson also restated allegations against Corestaff and certain individuals that are pending before Superior Court.) Anderson stated that Corestaff terminated his employment because he complained about its violations of the statutes.

PRO Engineering alleged that it had an "understanding" with Black and Veatch, regarding subcontracts for services on a revenue metering contract with PG&E, and that Black and Veatch had failed to assign the subcontracts to PRO Engineering.

Oasis Nuclear, Inc., alleged that it had been improperly prevented from presenting potential contract staff to PG&E by Corestaff.

All complainants alleged that PG&E also was violating General Order (GO) 156, the Commission order which implements the WMDVBE statute, by abdicating its responsibility for a prime contractor outreach program to Corestaff.

On September 3, 1999, PG&E answered the complaint and moved to dismiss. PG&E stated the statute and GO 156 encourage utilities to increase the extent to which WMDVBEs obtain procurement contracts from the utility. PG&E stated that in 1998 it awarded 22.74% of all procurement contracts to WMDVBE firms, thus exceeding its Commission-established goal of 21.5%. PG&E concluded that to the extent any complainant objected to its compliance with the WMDVBE standards, the complainant should pursue those issues in the annual proceeding for that purpose, and that this complaint should be dismissed.

PG&E further stated that Anderson had no standing to bring the complaint because he is not a WMDVBE, nor had PG&E ever employed him. PRO Engineering and Oasis Nuclear also lack standing, according to PG&E, because they are disappointed bidders that have no recourse before this Commission. PG&E also noted that all complainants are currently pursuing actions against Corestaff and PG&E in Superior Court on these same issues.

On October 4, 1999, complainants responded to PG&E's motion to dismiss. Complainants stated that PG&E failed to meet the minority component of its 1998 WMDVBE goals, 15%, because it actually only awarded 12.81% of its contracts to minorities. Complainants also stated that GO 156 requires companies competing for contracts with PG&E to have a goal of 15% minority participation for subcontracting. Complainants stated that they have standing because they have "necessary data" although they are "not directly interested" in the proceeding.

On October 12, 1999, PG&E replied to complainants' response. PG&E stated that complainants' allegations that Corestaff administers PG&E's diversity hiring were not true.

On November 5, 1999, complainants moved to consolidate this proceeding with the complaint against PG&E by California Personnel Resources, Case (C.) 99-09-024, due to "common issues of law and fact" and the convenience of the parties.