XJV/hl2 6/28/2004

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Petition of Certain Public Utilities to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal a Regulation Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1708.5 and for an Order Instituting a Rulemaking Regarding General Order 69-C.

Petition 02-02-003 (Filed February 4, 2002)

ADMINSTRATVE LAW JUDGE'S RULING

REQUESTING COMMENTS ON

GENERAL ORDER 69-C WORKSHOP REPORT AND

ESTABLISHING ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROTOCOLS

The workshop report prepared by Commission staff following the workshop on General Order 69-C, held May 28, 2003, is attached to this ruling as Appendix A. The report is filed as a part of this ruling and service of this ruling completes service of the report. Persons or entities wishing to file comments shall do so in accordance with the schedule established below. Comments shall be served in accordance with the electronic service protocols attached as Appendix B. As directed by Decision 02-10-057, I will prepare a draft decision for the Commission's consideration following the receipt of comments and the filing of the final workshop report.

IT IS RULED that:

1. Comments on the staff workshop report attached to this ruling (Appendix A) shall be filed and served by July 30, 2004 and reply comments shall be filed and served by August 20, 2004.

2. Service of all comments shall follow the electronic service protocols attached to this ruling (Appendix B).

Dated June 28, 2004, at San Francisco, California.

		/s/ JEAN VIETH
		Jean Vieth Administrative Law Judge

Draft Workshop Report on General Order 69-C:

"Easements on Property of Public Utilities"

Prepared by the Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

1. Introduction

On February 4, 2002, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and California-American Water Company ("Petitioners") filed Petition P.02-02-003 pursuant to Public Utilities ("PU") Code Section 1708.5 for an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OII) regarding Commission General
Order 69-C (GO 69-C). The Petition was served on the service list established for Rulemaking R.98-07-038, concerning revisions to General Order 96-A. Parties filing responses were: Calpine Corporation (Calpine); Verizon California Inc. (Verizon); Roseville Telephone Company (Roseville); AT&T Wireless Services of California, Inc. (AT&T); and jointly, California Cable & Telecommunications Association (CCTA) and WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom). A reply was also filed by the Petitioners.

On October 24, 2002, after considering the filings of all of the parties, the Commission issued an Interim Opinion (D.02-10-057) denying the Petition for a rulemaking and directing the Commission staff to convene an informal workshop to discuss the application of GO 69-C. In that Decision, the Commission concluded that it was premature to establish a rulemaking as it would not yield the fact-specific guidance on the application of GO 69-C that the Petitioners sought. In order to reduce any confusion and uncertainty for parties regarding GO 69-C and bring a measure of predictability to its application, a fact-intensive analysis and review of the GO's application would be required. The Interim Opinion indicated that the Commission's continued review of pending PU Code Section 851 (Section 851) applications would provide a source of fact-specific guidance regarding the use of leases for irrevocable easements on utility property and, conversely, would provide examples of factual situations where GO 69-C is inapplicable. Indeed, the Interim Opinion indicated that the Commission would continue to monitor the need for a rulemaking as it resolves related pending applications.

The Commission also noted in D.02-10-057 that informal workshops are another means of exploring issues and developing guidance, and the staff were directed to convene a public workshop by the second quarter of 2003 to discuss appropriate and inappropriate uses of GO 69-C and PU Code Section 851, and to solicit proposals for amendments to GO 69-C. Therefore, pursuant to Ordering Paragraph No. 2 of D.02-10-057, the Commission staff were asked to solicit (1) examples of the types of situations where workshop participants were unsure about whether or not they may rely on GO 69-C; and (2) workshop participants' views about the types of changes that might be made to facilitate the proper application of GO 69-C.

Subsequent to the workshop, the staff were given three directives: (1) prepare and file with the assigned ALJ a draft workshop report; (2) establish a schedule for comment by the workshop participants; and (3) file a final workshop report. Upon receipt of the draft report, the assigned ALJ will issue the draft report to the service list for P.02-02-003 for a comment period of at least 30 days. This document represents the first and second of these tasks; the final workshop report will be prepared and filed with the assigned ALJ subsequent to the receipt and analysis of comments on this draft report. Upon receipt of the final workshop report, the assigned ALJ will prepare a ruling indicating whether the Petitioners' motion for a formal rulemaking on the applicability of GO 69-C should be granted.