5. Appeal

The Presiding Officer's Decision (POD) was mailed December 12, 2005. CAUSE filed an appeal on December 30, 2005. SDG&E filed a response to the appeal on January 17, 2006.

In its appeal, CAUSE reiterates its claims that we are required to take official notice of the DHS EMF Report and to consider D.04-08-046 in this complaint proceeding. As noted in the POD, we are not required to take into consideration material that is not relevant to the issues to be decided. CAUSE did not demonstrate that relevance prior to issuance of the POD and has not shown it in the appeal.²¹

CAUSE also reargues its contention that SDG&E did not comply with the no-cost/low-cost EMF mitigation requirements of D.93-11-013. This claim is not supported by the record, which includes not only the prepared testimony on which CAUSE appears to rely, but also the clarifications and additional information developed through cross-examination at the EH.

Finally, CAUSE repeats its claim that the undergrounding of the southern portion of the 30^th Street overhead transmission line is one project that has been improperly segmented for CEQA purposes. As the POD notes, we simply cannot determine whether this claim is accurate, because the record does not reveal the processes of the lead agency - the City - with respect to determining the difference between a properly phased project and an improperly segmented project.

We therefore make no substantive changes to the POD, but update the footnote referring to R.04-08-020.

²¹ CAUSE also misinterprets Rule 73 as requiring this Commission to follow the same procedures for taking official notice as those set forth in § 453 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to judicial notice in the California courts.