PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION G-3292
October 5, 2000
R E S O L U T I O N
Resolution G-3292. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Requests Approval of its
modifications to Gas Rules 15 and 16 and Electric Rules 15 and 16 as ordered in
the Commission Decision 99-06-079.
By Advice Letter 2209-G/1963-E, Filed on January 31, 2000.
This Resolution denies PG&E request for approval of its advice letter 2209-G/1963-E filed
pursuant to Commission decision (D.) 99-06-079. PG&E’s modifications to its tariffs exceed the
scope of Ordering Paragraph 1 in D.99-06-079.
D.99-06-079, among other things adopted a proposal to delete Option 1, the “unit cost option”
from utilities’ line extension rules and ordered utilities to file proposed changes to line extension
rules consistent with the above decision.
In 1985, the Commission amended the Line Extension Rules to provide applicants for line
extensions with two options. Under Option 1, the utility provides an estimate based on the
utility’s system average or unit cost per foot of line extension, and the utility installs the line
extension. Under Option 2, the utility provides a site-specific estimate that the applicant can use
to “shop” for a lower bid from an independent contractor. The applicant has a choice of
installation by the utility or an independent contractor. At the outset, prior to receiving the
utility’s estimate for a line extension, the applicant must make an irrevocable selection of either
Option 1 or Option 2.
Notice of AL 2209-G/1963-E was made by publication in the Commission’s Daily Calendar.
PG&E states that a copy of the Advice Letter was mailed and distributed in accordance with
Section III-G of General Order 96-A.
PG&E responded to the protests by the POLARIS GROUP on March 29, 2000. POLARIS’
protested advice Letter 2209-G/1963-E.
Resolution G-3292 DRAFT October 5, 2000
The POLARIS GROUP contends that PG&E modified numerous sections of its tariffs filing that
changes the responsibilities of applicants and the utility that were not in the commission order.
The POLARIS GROUP further contends that PG&E proposes to change several customer
“options” to “responsibilities” and delete several PG&E’s responsibilites and these additional
changes eliminate PG&E’s responsibilities as the default provider of line extensions. PG&E
responded that in deleting Option 1, it is necessary for PG&E to make changes to those other
sections of the rules and to fully implement the Commission’s order for applicant installation to
be the standard, the rules must be changed as PG&E proposed.
Energy Division has reviewed the tariff rules PG&E filed in Advice Letter 2209-G/1963-E to
determine its compliance with the Ordering Paragraph 1 of 99-06-079. PG&E has extensively
revised the text of its tariffs for both Rules 15 and 16 for Gas, and Rules 15 and 16 for Electric.
Among other changes, it has inserted new material, changed text of its tariffs, and relocated its
material to other parts of the tariff schedule in numerous instances. For example, the previous
tariff section B named “INSTALLATION RESPONSIBILITIES” now reads
“INSTALLATION.” The subsections of this tariff section have been extensively revised and
new material added. Also, some material has been relocated. These types of changes are also
manifest in numerous other sections of these tariffs. Such changes are not in compliance with
D.99-06-079. All changes made to these tariffs must be in strict compliance with the ordering
paragraphs of this decision relating to the elimination of the unit cost and the irrevocable option
selection requirement as stated in Ordering Paragraph 1 of D.99-06-079.
We shall require PG&E to revise its filing in entirety as appropriate and file its tariffs and all
other affected documents and agreements. Also, we require that when any change is proposed
by an appropriate character along the right hand margin of the tariff sheet, PG&E shall provide
the Energy Division with a detailed list of commission authority by which such as a change was
authorized and its rationale for making such a change. We will accept POLARIS’ filed protest,
as it causes no delay in commission deliberations.
General Order 96-A, Section VI, prohibits from increasing rates without authorization from the
Commission. Public Utility Code section 2107 provides that we may fine utilities violating our
orders. However, since the advice letter procedure does not allow sufficient due process to
determine penalties for infractions, the Commission will consider the options available in
treating this violation of our rules.
The proposed resolution of the Energy Division in this matter was mailed to the parties on
August 8, 2000 in accordance with PU Code 311 (g).
Comments were filed by PG&E, UDI, and Polaris on August 21, August 29 and August 28
respectively. The parties raise no factual, legal, or technical errors, but reargue previously stated
Resolution G-3292 DRAFT October 5, 2000
1. Decision 99-06-097 ordered PG&E to file an Advice Letter to modify the Line Extension
Rules to reflect the deletion of Option 1, along with the irrevocable option selection
2. The protest filed by THE POLARIS GROUP is granted.
3. PG&E filing of its tariffs in this advice letter is beyond the scope as ordered in the
commission decision D.99-06-079.
4. Public Utilities Code section 2107 provides that the Commission may fine utilities for
violating Commission orders.
5. The advice letter procedure does not provide sufficient due process to assess the appropriate
penalty for infraction of Commission Rules.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. PG&E Advice Letter 2209-G/1963-E is denied.
2. PG&E shall file new Advice Letter with revised tariffs excluding all changes that are not in
strict compliance with the ordering paragraphs of D.99-06-079. PG&E shall provide a “red
line” copy (including “strikeout” and “underline”) of all tariff changes with the Advice Letter
to the Energy Division.
3. PG&E shall provide the Energy Division with a detailed list of the commission authority by
which such as a change was authorized and its rationale for making such a change.
This Resolution is effective today.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a conference of
the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held on October 5, 2000; the following
Commissioners voting favorably thereon:
WESLEY M. FRANKLIN