2. Background and Procedural History
Decision (D.) 06-06-062, which amended this Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR or Rulemaking), discusses problems with the Commission's Affiliate Transaction Rules and with GO 77-L, as well as potential solutions. Following written comment and reply comment,1 Commission staff released draft rule revisions on September 12, 20062 for further discussion at a public workshop held September 21, 2006. We have received additional written comment in the form of Pre-workshop and Post-workshop Statements.3
The Proposed Decision mailed on October 10, 2006. At the request of the assigned Commissioner, Oral Argument was held on October 18. Comments on the Proposed Decision were due on October 30, 2006 and Reply Comments were due on November 6.4 By ruling on November 11, 2006, parties were asked to provide additional written comment by November 17, 2006.5
1 At Respondents' request, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) extended the date for filing Comments from July 27 to August 8; she authorized the filing of Reply Comments on August 18. The following parties filed Comments: Consumer Federation of California (CFC), Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), Respondents (jointly), Richard Robinson & Associates, Inc. (Robinson Associates), and the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining). The following parties filed Reply Comments: CFC, DRA, Greenlining, and Respondents (jointly). Greenlining requested and received leave from the ALJ to file a further Reply on August 23, 2006. Independent Energy Producers Association's (IEP) Comments were attached to its September 29, 2006 motion requesting party status. Because IEP was granted party status earlier in this Rulemaking, its motion is moot.
2 See Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Proposing Draft Rules for Workshop Discussion, September 12, 2006 (September 12 ALJ Ruling).
3 The following parties filed Pre-workshop Statements: CFC and Respondents (jointly). The following parties filed Post-workshop Statements: CFC, DRA, Greenlining, IEP, Respondents (jointly), Robinson Associates, and The Utility Reform Network (TURN).
4 The following parties filed timely Comments: CFC, DRA, Greenlining, Respondents (jointly), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). CFC, DRA, and Respondents (jointly) also filed timely Reply Comments.
5 See Joint Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Inviting Comment on Further Proposal for Revisions to the Rules IV, V and VI of the Affiliate Transaction Rules Applicable to Large California Energy Utilities and Correcting Omission in Draft Revisions to GO 77 Attached to the Proposed Decision, November 7, 2006 (November 7 AC/ALJ Ruling). DRA and Respondents (jointly) filed timely Comments.
