Procedural Background

Complainants commenced this proceeding in early 2000. In addition to refunds, they sought an order directing PG&E to place their cotton ginning operations on the applicable agricultural rates.

PG&E filed a timely answer that denied the material allegations of the complaint, asserted various affirmative defenses, and alleged that "cotton ginning involves invading the corpus of the object removed from the plant. Therefore, cotton ginning results in a change in the form of the agricultural product which precludes applicability of PG&E's agricultural rate." (Answer. p. 4.)

A prehearing conference (PHC) was held on March 30, 2000. At the PHC, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that complainants were raising an issue of potentially broad applicability, and that the proper forum for considering the general question of eligibility for PG&E's agricultural rates was Application (A.) 99-03-014. Therefore, the ALJ continued, the scope of this case would be limited to determining whether the complainants were entitled to service under PG&E's existing agricultural tariffs, and whether they were entitled to refunds for the three-year period at issue. A hearing was scheduled, and due dates for the submission of opening and rebuttal testimony were also set.²

Pursuant to this schedule, the parties submitted opening testimony on April 18, 2000, and reply testimony on May 19. The hearing was held on June 19-20, 2000. Pursuant to the ALJ's direction at the hearing, opening briefs were filed and served on July 27, 2000, and reply briefs on August 18, 2000. On February 8, 2001, the Commission issued D.01-02-038, which extended the 12-month deadline for the case pursuant to § 1701.2(d) of the Public Utilities Code.