6. Discussion

There are three issues that we need to determine in this decision. First, should PG&E be allowed to withdraw A.01-04-012 unilaterally? Second, does PG&E require a CPCN or a PTC to contract with WAPA to interconnect WAPA's new 500 kV transmission line? Third, assuming there is approval in a more limited manner of PG&E's request, should the Commission certify CEQA work performed in this proceeding?

6.1 Withdrawal of A.01-04-012

By ruling dated November 30, 2001, the Assigned Commissioner denied PG&E's motion to withdraw it's a.01-04-012. In light of actions taken by the United States Secretary of Energy, the Path 15 project will proceed under federal authority.²⁵ PG&E's participation is limited to substation work on the Path 15 project. The principal project partners are WAPA and Trans-Elect.

We do not take interlocutory appeals of Commissioner ruling lightly. In this instance, it is appropriate. It is about eighteen months since PG&E filed its motion to withdraw. We are just now making a decision in this proceeding. Even if we were to approve this case on its merits, there would still be extensive amount of time required of us to decide CEQA issues. In the meantime, project owners are proceeding apace under the MOU. We need not be obstructionists. PG&E's motion to withdraw should be granted, but not before we address the issue of certifying the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. (See Section 6.3 below.)

PG&E in its motion, briefs, and comments argues that it has the right to unilaterally withdraw its application. ORA argues in opposition to PG&E's right to mandatory withdrawal. We agree with ORA, and consider PG&E's motion under our discretionary powers. As detailed herein, requiring PG&E to file its Application in spring of 2001 was reasonable. However, under current circumstances it serves no discernable public purpose. Therefore, we grant PG&E's motion to withdraw its Application 01-04-012.

6.2 Interconnection Requirements for Path 15

PG&E, under the MOU, needs to upgrade facilities at the Gates and the Midway substations and possibly undertake some reconductoring of a 230 kV transmission line. It argues that it does not need a CPCN or a PTC for this work. We agree that the substation work as currently described by PG&E falls within the General Order 131-D definition of substation modifications and is therefore exempt from a CPCN or PTC requirement pursuant to General Order 131-D Section III.B. and III.C. Similarly, the possible reconductoring work as currently described appears to fall within the General Order 131-D exemption under Section III.B.1.(e). If PG&E however, performs work beyond the scope of the construction agreement under the MOU, then PG&E should file an advice letter to advise the Commission of the change in scope and then possibly file either an application for a permit to construct or an application for a CPCN if warranted.

6.3 Environmental Impact Report Certification

We believe that the FSEIR meets these tests. It is a comprehensive, detailed, and complete document that clearly discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the environmentally superior routes, PG&E's proposed route, and various alternatives. We find that the FSEIR is the competent and comprehensive informational tool that CEQA requires it to be. The quality of the information therein is such that we are confident of its accuracy.

Notwithstanding the granting of PG&E's emergency motion, it is appropriate for the Commission to certify the FSEIR.

7. Comments on Proposed Alternate Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Gottstein in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on March 27, 2003 by PG&E, ORA and ISO, and reply comments were filed on April 1, 2003 by PG&E and ORA.

The proposed alternate decision of Commissioner Peevey in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure. ORA filed comments on May 13, 2003. ORA raised neither legal nor technical issues.