3. Procedural History

PG&E filed these applications on May 15, 2000. Following the first prehearing conference (PHC) on June 22, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hale issued rulings on June 30, August 7, and October 2, 2000, that directed PG&E to amend both applications to address identified deficiencies in them. The August 7 ruling also consolidated the proceedings for hearing, but stated a separate decision would issue on each application. PG&E filed amended applications on October 23, and the Commission held a second PHC on October 25.

Subsequently, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed Assembly Bill 6 (Stats. 2001, 1^st Ex. Sess., c.2), often referred to as AB 6X, which amended Pub. Util. Code § 377², effective January 18, 2001, to require the retention of public utility generation assets until January 1, 2006. On February 28, 2001, these proceedings were reassigned to ALJ Vieth. Several months later, on April 6, 2001, PG&E filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. PG&E did not withdraw these applications, however, and since review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) had already commenced, that review continued. On October 30, 2001, the Environmental Branch of the Commission's Energy Division, together with its consultant, issued a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for public review and comment. A Final MND issued on January 24, 2002. Pursuant to the ALJ's ruling, the MND has been identified as Reference Exhibit A and placed in the formal files of this proceeding.

On May 13, 2002, ALJ Vieth issued a ruling requesting briefs on the application of AB 6X to these proposed land transfers. PG&E and ORA filed briefs and PG&E filed a reply brief. The reply brief stated PG&E's intent to amend both applications again to revise the ratemaking treatment proposed but in a subsequent letter, PG&E advised the ALJ that, upon reconsideration, it saw no need for a different ratemaking proposal and would not file amendments.

On February 28, 2002, a draft decision issued for comment and thereafter was placed on the Commission's April 3, 2002 agenda as consent agenda item # 7 (CA-7). However, following FERC's March issuance of the new Pit 1 license, the ALJ Division subsequently withdrew the draft from the Commission agenda.

PG&E and the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed comments on the draft decision. PG&E also filed reply comments. In addition, both the Southern California Edison Company (Edison) and Pacific Terminals LLC (Pacific Terminals) filed requests to intervene for the purposes of filing comments on the draft decision's interpretation of § 377. These entities express concern that the statutory interpretation, if adopted by the Commission, would have implications for the outcome of other proceedings in which these entities have a direct interest. Good cause appearing, pursuant to Rules 45 and 53 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, we grant the interventions and accept for filing the comments tendered by Edison and by Pacific Terminals.