4. Discussion

The land transfers proposed in these consolidated applications are predicated upon the assumption that FERC would agree to remove certain lands and related property from PG&E's Pit 1 license. Since FERC has declined to do so, the transfers cannot proceed as proposed, even in the absence of a statutory bar. Thus, while the February 28 draft decision determined that Pub. Util. Code § 377 bars the transfer of land and other property at issue in these consolidated applications-and while the comments all reject that statutory interpretation-the legal issue is no longer ripe for determination and we decline to address it here.³

PG&E asks that we hold these consolidated applications "in abeyance" while it determines whether, and if so, how, these transactions may be restructured in light of FERC's order. We decline to do so, as these applications are already three years old. In keeping with legislative urgings that we actively monitor case management, we conclude that these applications should be dismissed without prejudice. If PG&E is able to restructure the transactions in the future, it may file a new application or applications.

In its comments on the draft decision, PG&E states that it has filed a rehearing request at FERC concerning the continued inclusion of McArthur Swamp in the new Pit 1 license, but concedes the timing and outcome of any rehearing is uncertain. PG&E then suggests that we dismiss only A.00-05-029, which concerns the McArthur Swamp transfer, and hold A.00-05-030 in abeyance while PG&E and the parties attempt to renegotiate their agreement regarding the Burney Falls, Bowman Ditch and Ahjumawi transfers. As we have already explained, holding a proceeding in abeyance is inconsistent with efficient case management. Neither does it provide the parties with significant administrative advantage. If they revise their agreement and severe the substantive linkage the current agreement imposes on the two applications, they will need to amend A.00-05-030. That amendment, just like a new application, will be subject to 30-days public review and comment. We will ensure that a new application, once complete, receives timely administrative review.

Several comments argue that the draft decision erred in failing to review the merits of the Final MND. These comments point out that, at a minimum, a Commission-adopted MND can be used by other agencies. It can also be used as a starting place for future environmental review at the Commission. We agree and below, we address the Final MND.

ORA's comments suggest that we should make findings on the merits of the application beyond the findings on the environmental impacts contained in the discussion below. We do not have the record to do so at this time, since the ratemaking proposals in the applications have not been developed sufficiently for us to assess, for example, whether the ORA and PG&E positions are aligned or not. Since the applications cannot proceed as currently structured, there is no need for further record development at this time.