2. Procedural History

On February 25, 2003, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Gottstein and Allen issued a ruling that contained a proposed framework for implementing § 399.25, and requested comments from interested parties (Joint Ruling).⁵ The Joint Ruling set forth a general framework for incorporating the requirements of § 399.25 into the planning process, as follows:

· The procurement proceeding (R.01-10-024) will develop the rules and procedures for the RPS planning process and RPS renewables bidding program. If the transmission facility is an integral part of a renewables project approved pursuant to the RPS procurement process (i.e., a winning renewables bid), that creates a prima facie finding that the transmission project will facilitate achievement of the renewable power goals set forth in Article 16 of SB 1078.

· The Commission will make § 399.25(a) and § 399.25(b)(1) findings on whether a proposed transmission project is "necessary" to facilitate achievement of renewable power goals in the applicable CPCN or PTC proceeding, based on the results of the RPS procurement process and GO 131-D considerations of alternatives to the proposed project.

· In the applicable CPCN or PTC proceeding, the Commission will make § 399.25(b)(1) findings regarding whether the transmission facilities provide benefits to the transmission network.

· The Commission will continue to perform the appropriate CEQA review of CPCN and PTC applications, which may include consideration of project alternatives.

In presenting the above framework as the "general rule" for making § 399.25 findings, the ALJs acknowledged the following exception:⁶

"We recognize that the Commission cannot make all of the findings required under § 399.25 with respect to transmission project need and ratemaking until the RPS rules and procedures for the renewables process have been developed and implemented. In the interim we are proceeding with the evidentiary hearings on one major renewables transmission project in the Transmission Investigation (I.00-11-001). As described in Judge Gottstein's January 29, 2003 ruling in that proceeding, there will be evidentiary hearings on the Tehachapi Transmission Project to address project network benefits, project costs, and other issues. We believe that it is prudent to move forward to develop an evidentiary record for this particular project before the RPS program is fully operational because (1) Southern California Edison Company is already proceeding with the biological studies to include in a CPCN application for this project, (2) the project costs, route and alternatives have been discussed over several months with industry participants, and (3) the project conceptual cost studies have been completed. Clearly, not all of the § 399.25 findings regarding this project can be considered by the Commission until the results of the RPS are known and the CPCN application is actually filed; but sufficient progress on some issues (e.g., network benefits) can be make over the next few months in the Transmission Investigation. [Footnote omitted.] As a general rule, however, we believe that the sequence and forum for making § 399.25 findings should follow the framework described above.⁷

The Joint Ruling was served on the service list in both the electric transmission investigation (I.00-11-001) and the generation procurement rulemaking (R.01-10-024). Comments were received from Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), the Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP), and the California Wind Energy Association (CalWEA). Reply Comments were received from SCE, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN).