Waiver of Comment Period - California



ALJ/DB3/mln/sf3 Date of Issuance 11/1/2017Decision 17-10-020 October 26, 2017BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIACity of Hayward,Complainant,vs.Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U-39-E),Defendant.Case 16-11-001ORDER EXTENDING STATUTORY DEADLINESummaryThis decision extends the statutory deadline for completion of this proceeding until May 4, 2018.BackgroundPub. Util. Code § 1701.2(i) provides that adjudicatory cases, such as this one, shall be resolved within 12 months of initiation unless the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) makes findings as to why that deadline cannot be met and issues an order extending that deadline. The 12-month statutory deadline for this proceeding is November 4, 2017. On November 4, 2016, the City of Hayward (Hayward or Complainant) filed this complaint against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), seeking a minimum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in Rule 20A allocation credits (not cash) for nine (9) specified projects, plus costs in pursuing this complaint. Hayward further requests that the Commission prohibit PG&E from deducting relocation expenses from Rule 20A allocations on all future projects and mandate a transparent process by which PG&E will be required to provide documentation of all reimbursements of relocation expenses to Rule 20A allocations on all future projects.PG&E filed its answer on December 14, 2016, and contends it has not violated any law or rule or order of the Commission. PG&E argues that a Rule 20A project is not entitled to a relocation credit unless the city or county provides PG&E with sufficient evidence that PG&E would have had to relocate its facilities anyway, which the Hayward has failed to do. PG&E argues that the specified projects were completed many years ago, the Hayward’s claim should be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, and the requested relief denied. PG&E raises three (3) affirmative defenses:1)Hayward’s complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 4.1(a)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure because it fails to state “any act or thing done or omitted to be done by [PG&E} in violation, or claimed to be in violation of any provision of law, or of any rule or order of the Commission”.2)Hayward’s complaint is barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util. Code) §§ 736 and 737, and PG&E’s Electric Rule 17.1.3)Rule 4.1(a)(1) does not authorize a complaint for an advisory opinion.The parties participated in two (2) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) sessions with a trained neutral from the Commission’s ALJ Division. While the parties did not reach full agreement at that time, they continued to work together and on August 29, 2017, Hayward and PG&E filed a joint motion for approval of settlement agreement. Because it will not be feasible for the Commission to fully consider the merits of the proposed settlement agreement and whether it complies with the Commission’s rules before the statutory deadline, an extension of time to May 4, 2018, is necessary.Waiver of Comment PeriodUnder Rule 14.6(c)(4) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission may waive the otherwise applicable 30-day period for public review and comment on a decision that extends the 12-month deadline set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2(i). Under the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to waive the 30-day period for public review and comment.Assignment of ProceedingLiane M. Randolph is the assigned Commissioner and Dan H. Burcham is the assigned Administrative Law Judge and presiding officer in this proceeding.Findings of FactOn November 4, 2016, Complainant Hayward filed this complaint against PG&E. PG&E filed its answer on December 14, 2016.The parties worked with one of the Commission’s Alternative Dispute Resolution neutrals in an effort to reach a settlement.On August 29, 2017, Hayward and PG&E filed a joint motion for approval of settlement.The 12-month statutory deadline in this proceeding is November 4, 2017. This proceeding cannot be completed by November 4, 2017.Conclusion of LawPursuant to the authority granted to the Commission under Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2(i), the statutory deadline should be extended to May 4, 2018.IT IS ORDERED that:The time for completion of this proceeding is extended until May 4, 2018.The 30-day period for review and comment on this order is waived.This order is effective today.Dated October 26, 2017, at Sacramento, California.?????????????????????????????????????????????????? MICHAEL PICKER???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? ????? ??? ?????President????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????CARLA J. PETERMAN??????????????????????????????????????????????????LIANE M. RANDOLPH???????????????????????????????????????????????????MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES??????????????????????????????? ????????????????? CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Commissioners ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download