3. Standard of Review
The Commission may entertain complaints against public utilities where such complaints set forth "any act or thing done or omitted to be done . . . in violation, or claimed to be in violation, of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission." § 1702.
GO 156 Section 7 states in most relevant part that:2
"Complaints relating to this general order shall be filed pursuant to PU Code § 1702 and Article 3 of the Commission's rules and procedures.
"7.1. The Commission will not, however, entertain complaints which do not allege violations of any law, Commission rule, order, or decision, or utility tariffs resulting from such Commission action, but which instead involve only general contract-related disputes, such as failure to win a contract award."
As noted in the rulemaking on the Commission's own motion to revise General Order 156 [D.98-11-030] (1998) 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1022, *25: "GO 156 does not confer any additional formal complaint rights other than those rights already set forth in PU Code § 1702. The WMDVBE Program does not have its own special set of CPUC appeal or complaint rights." (1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1022, *25.) Any complainant may file a complaint under GO 156 Section 7, regardless of the complainant's status as a WMDVBE.
The Commission has previously interpreted a utility's obligations under the WMDVBE statute and decisions:
2 GO 156, Sections 7.2 and 7.3, establish specific procedures governing complaints concerning verification decisions of the contractor the Commission has engaged to review applications for verification of WMBE status. Because the clearinghouse contractor is not a public utility, and thus not subject to § 1702, it was necessary to develop a process by which clearinghouse decisions could be formally reviewed. Since the current complaint does not involve clearinghouse verification decisions, GO 156 Sections 7.2 and 7.3 are irrelevant."In the area of WMDVBE contracting, Public Utilities Code Sections 8281 through 8286,... and GO 156 which implements the statute, do not obligate a covered utility to award any particular contract to any particular vendor, WMDVBE or otherwise. They do not, indeed cannot, require that a WMDVBE vendor be given preference over non-WMDVBE vendors, nor does possession of WMDVBE status guarantee receipt of a contract for the provision of goods and services.
"The WMDVBE statute requires each utility subject to the statute to devise and implement a plan designed to increase participation by WMDVBEs in the procurement of goods and services by the utility. GO 156 establishes various goals (not quotas or set-asides) for such participation. In short, GO 156 merely expresses the desire (not obligation) that of each utility's yearly total procurement dollar expenditures, certain percentages go to WMDVBEs.
"With respect to any particular procurement effort, all that is required of the utility is that it create and maintain a `level playing field' where all those competing for that procurement contract are competing on as fair and equal basis as possible." (Systems Analysis and Integration, Inc., dba Systems Integrated v. Southern California Edison Company, [D.96-12-023] (1996) 69 CPUC2d 516, 523 (emphasis in original).)
