COM/MP1/avs Mailed 7/13/2007
Decision 07-07-017 July 12, 2007
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking Concerning Relationship Between California Energy Utilities and their Holding Companies and Non-Regulated Affiliates. |
Rulemaking 05-10-030 (Filed October 27, 2005) |
OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO
GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND CALIFORNIA CONSUMER FEDERATION
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 06-12-029
This decision awards Greenlining Institute (Greenlining) $97,111.45 and Consumer Federation of California (CFC) $57,412.96 in compensation for their substantial contributions to Decision (D.) 06-12-029. These awards represent a decrease of $9,377.50 in the amount sought by Greenlining and a decrease of $13,206.25 in the amount sought by CFC. Today's awards payment will be allocated to the affected utilities. This proceeding is closed.
1. Background
The Commission opened this docket with Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) or (R.) 05-10-030, filed October 27, 2005 and mailed October 31, 2005. As initially stated, the OIR's purpose was "to re-examine the relationship of the major energy utilities with their parent holding companies and affiliates." (OIR, mimeo., p. 1.) By Decision (D.) 06-06-062, the Commission amended the OIR both as to scope and schedule. The Commission revised the scope of the OIR to include consideration of revisions to the Affiliate Transaction Rules first adopted in 1997 and to the Commission' General Order (GO) 77-L, which governs the reporting of compensation paid to executive officers and employees of regulated utilities. D.06-06-062 reaffirmed, however, that the any revisions would apply only to California's major energy utilities and their holding companies, the Respondents identified by R.05-10-030: Southern California Edison Company (Edison)/Edison International, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)/PG&E Corporation, and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), both owned by Sempra Energy.
The process thereafter included comment and reply comment on the scope of the amended OIR, followed by the issuance of Commission staff-proposed draft revisions to the Affiliate Transaction Rules and to GO 77-L. These drafts were discussed at a public workshop and in the parties' filed Pre-workshop and Post-workshop Statements. The Proposed Decision, mailed on October 10, 2006, contained further revisions to both sets of rules. On October 18, 2006, the Commission held oral argument at the request of the assigned Commissioner. By ruling on November 11, 2006, parties were asked to provide additional written comment on further, proposed revisions to GO 77-L. On December 14, 2006, by D.06-12-029, the Commission adopted the Affiliate Transaction Rules Applicable to Large California Energy Utilities and GO 77-M. A few months later, by D.07-03-049, the Commission corrected a clerical omission in Appendix B-3 to D.06-12-029.
