3. Procedural History

Pursuant to the Assigned Commissioner's March 26, 1999, ruling, the utilities solicited public input on PY2000 low-income assistance programs. PG&E organized several meetings with existing contractors, interested community action agencies, local governments and low-income ratepayer representatives.²¹ PG&E circulated its proposed RFP and sample contract to prospective bidders on July 27, 1999.

SDG&E held a public meeting on June 3, 1999, which was attended by representatives of low-income program energy service providers, community-based organizations and other non-profit entities.²² SCE and SoCal jointly solicited public comment on their proposals at public meetings and through written requests for comments.²³ However, SDG&E, SoCal, and SCE filed their applications without releasing their proposed RFPs and contracts to the public or the Commission.

Responses to the applications were filed by Community Resource Project, Inc., the Latino Issues Forum, LIAB, ORA, Contractors' Coalition, and Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association. Replies to the responses were filed by the utilities on August 13, 1999.

On July 29, 1999, the East Los Angeles Community Union, Maravilla Foundation, and the Association of Southern California Energy and Environmental Programs (collectively referred to as "Southern California Agencies") filed a petition to set aside submissions, suspend the current filing dates, and reopen the proceeding for the taking of further evidence (Petition). In their Petition, Southern California Agencies argued that new evidence should be taken regarding the Commission's order directing the utilities to competitively bid the low-income energy efficiency programs.

The Petition was protested by the Contractors' Coalition, PG&E and SDG&E/SoCal (jointly) on both procedural and substantive grounds. After oral argument, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Petition at the prehearing conference, which was held on August 23, 1999. She also directed the utilities to formally file their proposed RFPs and contracts as a supplement to their applications.

The Assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo and ruling in this proceeding on September 3, 1999, which was modified on September 16, 1999. The ruling confirmed the Commission's preliminary finding that this proceeding is a ratesetting proceeding, clarified the role of LIAB, established the procedural schedule, discussed the scope of the proceeding, and designated the assigned ALJ as the principal hearing officer.

The utilities submitted direct testimony on September 17, 1999. On October 8, 1999, PG&E, LIAB, RHA, the Greenlining Institute, Latino Issues Forum, Insulation Contractors Association and others filed a joint motion to bifurcate the procedural schedule and immediately approve PG&E's proposed weatherization RFP on an ex parte basis. Contractors' Coalition protested the motion. The assigned ALJ denied the motion because it did not meet the conditions stated in the Assigned Commissioner's scoping memo:

"...if all interested parties believe that there are no contested issues with respect to this particular RFP, or that the contested issues can be resolved without evidentiary hearings, then I will consider the option of addressing PG&E's weatherization RFP on a separate, faster procedural track. However, parties proposing a bifurcation of the procedural schedule need to address concerns over prejudging generic issues with such an approach." (Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling, dated September 3, 1999, p. 6.)

On October 12, 1999, testimony responding to the utility applications and RFPs was submitted by the Contractors' Coalition, the Greenlining Institute, ORA, Latino Issues Forum and Southern California Agencies. LIAB issued a report on the applications and competitive bidding proposals on October 15, 1999. Rebuttal testimony was filed by each of the utilities, ORA, Contractors' Coalition, Latino Issues Forum, Greenlining Institute and jointly by the Bay Area Poverty Resource Council, Community Resource Project, Inc., Proteus, Inc., California/Nevada Community Action Association, and the Northern California Indian Development Council, Inc., collectively referred to as "Northern California Associations."

Nine days of evidentiary hearings were held on November 1-5 and November 16-19, 1999. In addition, public participation hearings were held on January 11, 2000 (in Sacramento), and January 13, 2000 (in Los Angeles). Over 50 people attended the Sacramento hearing, and over 80 attended the Los Angeles hearing. The Commission heard from approximately 60 speakers at those meetings, representing contractors associations, private contractors and subcontractors under the LIEE programs, CBOs, non-profit multi-service providers, low-income families and the utilities.

Opening and reply briefs were filed by Contractors' Coalition, Greenlining Institute/Latino Issues Forum, Northern California Associations,²⁴ ORA, PG&E, RHA, SCE, SDG&E/SoCal and Southern California Agencies on December 23, 1999 and January 11, 2000, respectively. Supplemental opening briefs on the public participation hearings were filed by Contractors' Coalition, Greenlining Institute/Latino Issues Forum, Northern California Associations, PG&E, RHA, SDG&E/SoCal, SCE, and Southern California Agencies on January 24, 2000. This case was submitted on February 4, 2000, with the submission of supplemental reply briefs by Contractor's Coalition, Northern California Associations, ORA, RHA, SCE, and SDG&E/SoCal.