STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

December 12, 2005

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN CASE 04-12-012

This proceeding was filed on December 20, 2004, and is assigned to
Commissioner Geoffrey Brown and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Anne Simon. This is the decision of the Presiding Officer, ALJ Simon.

Any party to this adjudicatory proceeding may file and serve an Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision within 30 days of the date of issuance (i.e., the date of mailing) of this 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 as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little weight.

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 Commission's 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/ Angela K. Minkin

Angela K. Minkin, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

ANG:avs

Attachment

ALJ/AES-POD/avs

PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION (Mailed 12/12/2005)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

California Alliance for Utility Safety and Education, Complainant, vs. San Diego Gas and Electric Company and the City of San Diego, Defendants.

Case 04-12-012 (Filed December 20, 2004)

Harold Tyvoll, for California Alliance for Utility Safety and Education, complainant.

Kelly M. Morton, San Diego Gas & Electric Company,
for San Diego Gas & Electric Company, defendant.

OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT

OPINION DISMISSING COMPLAINT

1. Summary

We find that, in planning and constructing the 30th Street 138 kV underground conversion project in San Diego (Undergrounding Project), defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) did not comply with the mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq., and General Order (GO) 131-B. Since the Undergrounding Project has already been built, however, we will not now require SDG&E to take any remedial steps with respect to the requirements of GO 131-D or CEQA for the Undergrounding Project. We also find that SDG&E complied with the requirements of Decision (D.) 93-11-013 regarding no-cost and low-cost measures to mitigate the impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF) in its construction of the Undergrounding Project.