Background

Decision (D.) 99-06-056 [the Second Modification Decision] granted PG&E's petition for an extension of time, until January 1, 2000, to implement the previously adopted weekly averaging methodology in calculating the Power Exchange (PX) price for direct access customers.¹ D. 99-06-056 also ordered:

"This proceeding will remain open so that the Commission may consider whether and the extent to which PG&E should be penalized for its failure to implement the requirements of D.97-08-065 and its failure to comply with the implementation deadline of January 1, 1999 in D.98-03-050." (D.99-06-056, Ordering Paragraph 2; rehearing denied D.99-10-026.)

D.97-08-056 [the Cost Separation Decision], adopted the weekly methodology and required PG&E, Southern California Edison Company (Edison), and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) to incorporate it in their billing systems by January 1, 1998. PG&E thereafter petitioned for an open-ended extension because of CIS upgrade problems. D.98-03-050 [the First Modification Decision] granted PG&E a limited extension, until January 1, 1999.

By ruling dated April 13, 1999, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Malcolm directed the parties to file briefs proposing penalties or arguing why penalties should not be levied. PG&E and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates filed opening briefs on June 25, 1999; PG&E filed a reply brief on 12, 1999. The proceeding was subsequently reassigned to ALJ Wetzell and then ALJ Vieth.