3. Interplay of this Petition with Related Proceedings

ORA and TURN state that two proceedings related to Edison's overall interpretation and implementation of Rule V.F.1 are outstanding. One is Edison's compliance plan process, as ordered by D.97-12-088. Edison has submitted a revised compliance plan which is awaiting a Commission resolution. ORA and TURN have also filed a complaint case (Case (C.) 98-04-029) alleging Edison's noncompliance with Rule V.F.1. Edison has presented the same argument in that case as it has in its compliance plan. The parties to the complaint case, with the concurrence of the assigned Administrative Law Judge, have stayed processing of the complaint pending the Commission's resolution of the compliance plan.

ORA and TURN state Edison's petition is not timely, because the very essence of Edison's compliance with Rule V.F.1 is in dispute in the above-referenced filings before the Commission. ORA and Edison request that Edison amend its petition to clarify its position on Rule V.F.1 before the Commission acts on this petition.

In its reply, Edison states that it believes that its petition will promote efficiency of process. Edison recognizes that if the Commission adopts Edison's interpretation¹ of Rule V.F.1, then Edison's petition is rendered substantially moot. However, Edison does not believe the petition would be entirely moot because the materials which would be exempted if the Commission granted the petition should remain exempt whether or not the corporate `tag line' is featured in conjunction with the holding company logo and affiliated companies' names. If the Commission rejects Edison's compliance plan, Edison believes the Commission may do so while having the opportunity to recognize that there are certain limited instances in which the disclaimer requirement will not operate given the time, place, and manner in which the disclaimer is used, or as a practical matter because it cannot. Edison argues that the petition presents the Commission with the opportunity to appreciate and deal with some of the practical permutations of the disclaimer rule.

We do not address Edison's overall interpretation of Rule V.F.1, or those issues raised by its compliance plan and in C.98-04-029 in this decision. The Commission will address Edison's overall interpretation of Rule V.F.1 in its resolution on Edison's compliance plan and in C.98-04-029, as appropriate. What we address in this decision is whether the Commission should make the following exemptions to Rule V.F.1 in cases where the Rule applies.