R94-04-031, I94-04-032 JLN/JJJ ruling, June 18, 1998

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission’s Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California’s Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation.

Rulemaking 94-04-031

(Filed April 20, 1994)

Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California’s Electric Services Industry and Reforming Regulation.

Investigation 94-04-032

(Filed April 20, 1994)

ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER AND

ASSIGNED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING

REQUESTING COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE ISSUE

On June 10, 1998, various parties filed a motion proposing an adoption of a settlement agreement on qualifying facility (QF) contract restructuring and modification issues. A June 8 Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) ruling provided that parties may comment to the settlement pursuant to Rule 51.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure no later than July 10, 1998, with reply comments due no later than July 27, 1998.

The settlement is not an "all-party" settlement. However, based on the comments filed prior to the settlement, as well as the proposed settlement, it appears that all commenting parties to date agree that the Commission should adopt the Qualifying Facility Restructuring Reasonableness Letter (QFRLL) process.

This ruling requests that, at the same time that parties file comments to the motion for settlement (i.e., July 10), that they comment on whether the Commission should separately consider the QFRLL process from the rest of the issues in the case, or whether the Commission should decide all the QF contract restructuring issues set forth in the February 6, 1998 Assigned Commissioner and ALJ’s Ruling at the same time. Parties not filing comments to the motion to adopt the settlement (i.e., parties that expressly join in the settlement) may nonetheless file a response to the above question no later than July 10. We do not anticipate that replies need to be filed on this issue.

Therefore, IT IS RULED that, no later than July 10, 1998, interested parties should file comments on whether the Commission should separately consider the Qualifying Facility Restructuring Reasonableness Letter process from the rest of the issues in the case, or whether the Commission should decide all the qualifying facility contract restructuring issues set forth in the February 6, 1998 Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling at the same time.

Dated June 18, 1998, at San Francisco, California.

Josiah L. Neeper
Assigned Commissioner

Janet A. Econome
Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Assigned Commissioner and Assigned Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Requesting Comments on Additional Procedural Issue on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.

Dated June 18, 1998, at San Francisco, California.

Fannie Sid

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.