STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

June 13, 2001 File No.: A.99-08-021

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 99-08-021

Because this proceeding originally was categorized as ratesetting, the attached decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Walker was distributed to the parties on May 18, 2001, pursuant to the ratesetting provisions of Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3(a) and Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

In fact, this decision deals with Phase II of the proceeding, and Phase II of the proceeding had been recategorized as an adjudicatory matter by Scoping Memo dated March 9, 2000. The Scoping Memo designated ALJ Walker as the Presiding Officer.

Accordingly, the distribution of the Phase II decision as a ratesetting decision was in error. Instead, the Presiding Officer's decision should have been distributed to parties pursuant to the adjudicatory provisions of Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2(a) and Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Therefore, we withdraw the distribution of May 18, 2001, and re-issue this decision as the Presiding Officer's Decision under Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2(a) and Rule 8.2. We note that no comments were filed as a result of the earlier distribution.

Any party to this proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of issuance (i.e., the date of this mailing) of the decision. In addition, any Commissioner may request review of the Presiding Officer's Decision by filing and serving a Request for Review within 30 days of the date of issuance.

Appeals and Requests for Review must set forth specifically the grounds on which the appellant or requestor believes the Presiding Officer's Decision to be unlawful or erroneous. The purpose of an Appeal or Request for Review is to alert the Commission to a potential error, so that the error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission. Vague assertions to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

TO PARTIES IN A.99-08-021

June 13, 2001

Page 2

Appeals and Requests for Review must be served on all parties and accompanied by a certificate of service. Any party may file and serve a Response to an Appeal or Request for Review no later than 15 days after the date the Appeal or Request for Review was filed. In cases of multiple Appeals or Requests for Review, the Response may be to all such filings and may be filed 15 days after the last such Appeal or Request for Review was filed. Replies to Responses are not permitted. (See, generally, Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.)

If no Appeal or Request for Review is filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of the Presiding Officer's Decision, the decision shall become the decision of the Commission. In this event, the Commission will designate a decision number and advise the parties by letter that the Presiding Officer's Decision has become the Commission's decision.

/s/ LYNN T. CAREW

Lynn T. Carew, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

LTC:sid

Attachment

ALJ/GEW-POD/sid

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 6/13/2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of Pacific Fiber Link, L.L.C. (U-6028-C) for Modification of its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") to Review Proponent's Environmental Assessment for Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

Application 99-08-021 (Filed August 10, 1999)

Stephen P. Bowen and Anita C. Taff-Rice, Attorneys at Law,

for Pacific Fiber Link, applicant.

Stephen G. Puccini, Attorney at Law, for the California

Department of Fish and Game and Catherine A. Johnson

and Carol A. Dumond, Attorneys at Law, for the Consumer Services Division, protestants.

O P I N I O N

1. Summary

We are asked to decide whether penalties should apply to a telecommunications carrier that began trenching and installing a fiber optic project in 1998 before it received the formal approval of this Commission under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000-21176. The utility in July 1999 was ordered by this Commission to stop work until it obtained formal CEQA approval six months later. Because the Commission in 1998 had no procedure in place for conducting a CEQA review for the type of utility involved, and because the utility was led to believe by Commission staff that an administrative CEQA approval was forthcoming, and because the utility itself retained environmental experts to monitor and direct its work, we conclude that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, no further sanctions are warranted. This proceeding is closed.