STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
October 8, 2002 Agenda ID #1196
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 01-03-008
This is the draft decision of Administrative Law Judge Thomas. It will not appear on the Commission's agenda for at least 30 days after the date it is mailed. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later.
When the Commission acts on the draft decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.
Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the draft decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." These rules are accessible on the Commission's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.
/s/ Carol Brown
Carol Brown, Interim Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ALJ/SRT/avs DRAFT Agenda ID #1196
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ THOMAS (Mailed 10/8/2002)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for Commission Approval for Irrevocable Lease for Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. to User Fiber Optic Cable on Certain PG&E Transmission Facilities Under Terms of an Optical Fiber Installation and IRU Agreement. |
Application 01-03-008 (Filed March 8, 2001) |
OPINION DENYING APPLICATION
I. Summary
We deny the application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for approval of an irrevocable lease for Metromedia Fiber Network Services, Inc. (MFNS) to use and install fiber optic cable on PG&E's facilities. PG&E has failed to identify with specificity the facilities affected and the exact nature of project activity that would take place. Without this specificity it is impossible for us to determine what we are being asked to approve. Therefore, we find that PG&E has failed to meet its burden of establishing what environmental review is necessary or that the approval it seeks will not cause environmental impacts that require analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Indeed, PG&E contends CEQA is not applicable here.
Moreover, PG&E's application clearly is intended to benefit MFNS in its attempt to build a San Francisco Bay Area fiber optic network. As such, it is part of a piecemeal approach MFNS has taken to acquiring approval and environmental review of its project. While this may not be PG&E's fault, we take official notice of the fact that MFNS has several other applications pending before this Commission related to various aspects of its California fiber optic project. Some have received CEQA review, while others have not. The environmental impacts of the project may be greater if analyzed as a whole rather than in pieces. The piecemeal approach creates the risk that the MFNS project will evade CEQA review as a whole.
