L/cdl Date of Issuance 

November 23, 2015 

156044107 1

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Order Instituting Investigation and Ordering 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Appear 

and Show Cause Why It Should Not Be 

Sanctioned for Violations of Article 8 and 

Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure and Public Utilities Code Sections 

1701.2 and 1701.3.

FILED

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

NOVEMBER 23, 2015

I.15-11-015

ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION 

AND ORDERING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED 

FOR VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 8 AND RULE 1.1 OF THE RULES OF 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE AND PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 

SECTIONS 1701.2 AND 1701.3 

1. Summary 

We open this investigation into Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) 

failure to timely report ex parte communications and for engaging in improper ex parte

communications in violation of Article 8 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (C.C.R. 

Title 20, Div. 1, Ch. 1, Sections 8.1 et seq.), Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, and Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util. Code) §§ 1701.2(c) and 1701.3(c) related 

to the following proceedings:

 Rulemaking (R.) 09-01-019, Rulemaking to Examine the 

Commission's Energy Efficiency Risk/Reward Incentive 

Mechanism (Energy Efficiency Risk/Reward Incentive 

Mechanism Rulemaking)

 R.11-02-019, Rulemaking to Adopt New Safety and Reliability 

Regulations for Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution 

Pipelines and Related Ratemaking Mechanisms (Gas Pipeline 

Safety and Reliability Rulemaking) 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 1

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

2

 Application (A.) 09-12-020, Application of PG&E for Authority, 

Among Other Things, to Increase Rates and Charges for Electric 

and Gas Service Effective on January 1, 2011 (PG&E’s 2011 

General Rate Case (GRC)) 

 A.09-09-021, Application of PG&E for Approval of 

2008 Long-Term Request for Offer Results and for Adoption of 

Cost Recovery and Ratemaking Mechanisms (PG&E Application 

for Approval of 2008 LTRO Results) 

 A.09-12-002, Application of PG&E for Approval of the Manzana 

Wind Project and Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience 

and Necessity (PG&E Application for Approval of Manzana 

Wind Project) 

 A.10-02-028, Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

for Approval of its 2010 Rate Design Window Proposal for 

2-Part Peak Time Rebate and Recovery of Incremental 

Expenditures Required for Implementation, and consolidated 

matter A.10-08-005 (PG&E Application for Approval of Peak 

Time Rebate) 

 A.14-02-008, Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

for Compliance Review of Utility Owned Generation Operations, 

Electric Energy Resource Recovery Account Entries, Contract 

Administration, Economic Dispatch of Electric Resources, 

Utility Retained Generation Fuel Procurement, and Other 

Activities for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2013 

(PG&E 2013 ERRA Application) 

 Investigation (I.) 12-01-007, Investigation into the Operations 

and Practices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Determine 

Violations of Pub. Util. Code § 451, General Order 112, and 

Other Applicable Standards, Laws, Rules and Regulations in 

Connection with the San Bruno Explosion and Fire on September 

9, 2010, and related investigations I.11-02-016 and I.11-11-009. 

(Pipeline Investigations) 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 2

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

3

Additionally, PG&E is ordered to show cause why it should not also be found to 

have violated the prohibition on ex parte communications in the Pipeline Investigations, 

as alleged by the City of San Bruno in the Pipeline Investigations.1 

2. Background and Discussion 

The Commission first became aware of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E) having engaged in improper ex parte communications in Application 

(A.) 13-12-012, the Application of PG&E Proposing Cost of Service and Rates for Gas 

Transmission and Storage Services for the Period 2015 – 2017 (GT&S Proceeding). On 

September 15, 2014, in that proceeding, PG&E filed a “Notice of Improper Ex Parte

Communications” giving notice of numerous written communications concerning the 

assignment of that proceeding to particular Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) in 

violation of Rule 8.3(f). By ruling dated September 17, 2014, the Law and Motion ALJ 

ordered PG&E to appear and show cause why it should not be sanctioned for those 

violations, and the Commission ultimately imposed sanctions on PG&E for those 

violations. (See Decision (D.) 14-11-041.) 

On October 6, 2014, also in the GT&S Proceeding, PG&E filed an “Update Re 

September 15, 2014 Notice of Improper Ex Parte Communications” giving notice of 

improper ex parte oral communications with a Commissioner that had occurred on 

May 30, 2010, concerning matters in A.09-12-020 (PG&E’s 2011 GRC), A.09-09-021 

(PG&E’s Application for Approval of 2008 LTRO Results), A.09-12-002 (PG&E 

Application for Approval of Manzana Wind Project), and R.09-01-019 (Energy 

Efficiency Risk/Reward Incentive Mechanisms Rulemaking).2 These proceedings are 

categorized as ratesetting and, as such, are subject to Rule 8.3(c) and Rule 8.4. Rule 

8.3(c) requires that notice of an individual meeting with a decisionmaker be given at least 

 

1

See D.15-04-024 at 172. 

2 This notice was subsequently filed in each of those dockets pursuant to Chief ALJ Sullivan’s 

December 4, 2014 ruling. 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 3

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

4

three days before the meeting, and Rule 8.4 requires that a description of the 

communication be reported within three business days of its occurrence.3

On December 22, 2014, in Rulemaking (R.) 11-02-019 (Gas Pipeline Safety and 

Reliability Rulemaking) and in Pipeline Investigations, PG&E filed a “Late Notice of 

Ex Parte Communications” giving notice of improper ex parte communications with 

Commissioners that had occurred on September 9, 2011, November 21, 2011, and 

December 31, 2012, concerning matters in those proceedings. The Gas Pipeline Safety 

and Reliability Rulemaking is categorized as ratesetting and, as such, is subject to 

Rule 8.3(c) and Rule 8.4 as described above. The Pipeline Investigations are categorized 

as adjudicatory and, as such, ex parte communications are prohibited pursuant to 

Rule 8.3(b). 

On June 11, 2015, in A.10-02-028 and consolidated matter (PG&E Application for 

Approval of Peak Time Rebate), PG&E filed late notice of an ex parte communication 

that had occurred on January 28, 2014, with a Commissioner’s personal advisor. This 

proceeding is categorized as ratesetting and, as such, communications with a 

Commissioner’s personal advisor must be reported consistent with Rule 8.4 as described 

above. (See Rule 8.2.) 

On May 21, 2015, in A.14-02-008 (PG&E 2013 ERRA Application), PG&E filed 

notice of an improper ex parte communication that occurred on March 6, 2014 with a 

Commissioner.4 The communication concerned the assignment of a particular ALJ to the 

proceeding. Pursuant to Rule 8.3(f), “ex parte communications regarding the assignment 

of a proceeding to a particular Administrative Law Judge ... are prohibited.”

In addition to admitting that it failed to comply with Rule 8 of the Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (Rules), PG&E’s filings demonstrate that it knowingly violated 

 

3 These rules apply to proceedings that have been categorized as ratesetting. A.09-12-020, A.09-09-021, 

A.09-12-002 and R.09-01-019 are categorized as ratesetting. 

4 The assignment of the ALJ and assigned Commissioner occurred on March 14, 2014. 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 4

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

5

Pub. Util. Code §§ 1701.2(c) and 1701.3(c).5 This investigation shall determine what 

sanctions should be imposed for these violations pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 

2107 and 2108. 

Further, this investigation shall determine whether PG&E’s admitted failure to file 

timely the ex parte notices delineated in this Order, as well as its admission that it 

knowingly engaged in prohibited ex parte communications, constitutes a violation of 

Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If violations are found, 

this investigation shall determine what sanctions should be imposed for these violations 

pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 701, 2107 and 2108. 

Finally, we shall consider in this investigation the following allegations of ex parte

violations raised by the City of San Bruno in the Pipeline Investigations: 

1. Motion of the City of San Bruno For An Order To Show Cause Why 

Pacific Gas And Electric Company Should Not Be Held In Violation of 

Commission Rule of Practice And Procedure 8.3(b) (Rule Against 

Ex Parte Communications) and for Sanctions and Fees, filed on 

July 28, 2014. 

2. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on City of San Bruno’s Motion for an 

Order to Show Cause as to Why Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Should Not Be Held in Violation of Commission Rule of Practice and 

Procedure 8.3(b) and for Sanctions and Fees, filed on 

November 10, 2014. 

We noted in D.15-04-024, “Due to the seriousness of the allegations raised by [the 

City of San Bruno] we believe they should be further investigated.”6 We find that this 

investigation is the appropriate forum to review these allegations.

 

5

Section 1701.2(c) provides that ex parte communications are prohibited in adjudicatory cases. Section 

1701.3(c) provides, in relevant part that a party that is granted an individual ex parte meeting send notice 

of the meeting at the time the request is granted, but “in no event shall that notice be less than three days.” 

6 D.15-04-024 at 173. 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 5

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

6

Accordingly, we hereby order PG&E to appear, at a time to be determined by the 

presiding officer, and show cause why it should not be sanctioned for violating Rule 8 of 

the Commission’s Rules, Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules and the Pub. Util. Code. 

3. Preliminary Scoping Memo 

The preliminary scope of issues and schedule of the proceeding are set forth 

below, and may be changed by the assigned Commissioner’s scoping memo. (See 

Rule 7.3.)

1. What sanctions should be imposed on PG&E for its admitted 

violations of Rule 8 of the Commission’s Rules and Pub. Util. 

Code §§ 1701.2(c) and 1701.3(c) with respect to the following ex 

parte notices? 

a. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Update Re September 

15, 2014 Notice of Improper Ex Parte Communications, filed 

on October 6, 2014 in A.13-12-012 (reporting improper 

ex parte oral communications with a Commissioner that 

had occurred on May 30, 2010, concerning matters in 

A.09-12-020, A.09-09-021, A.09-12-002, and R.09-01-019). 

b. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Late Notice of Ex Parte 

Communications, filed on December 22, 2014 in R.11-02-019 

(giving late notice of ex parte communications with 

Commissioners that had occurred on September 20, 2011, and 

December 31, 2012). 

c. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Notice of Improper 

Ex Parte Communications, filed on December 22, 2014 in 

I.12-01-007, I.11-02-016 and I.11-11-009 (giving notice of 

improper ex parte communications with Commissioners that 

occurred on December 31, 2012 and March 3, 2012).

d. Revised Late-Filed Notice of Ex Parte Communication of 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, filed on June 11, 2015 in 

A.10-02-028 (giving late notice of an ex parte communication 

that had occurred on January 28, 2014, with a 

Commissioner’s personal advisor.) 

e. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (U39E) notice of 

Improper Communication, filed on May 21, 2015 in 

A.14-02-008 (giving notice of improper ex parte 

communication that occurred on March 6, 2014). 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 6

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

7

2. Did PG&E violate Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure by failing to timely file the ex parte notices or by engaging in 

improper ex parte communications listed in #1 above? If violations of Rule 1.1 

are found, what sanctions should be imposed? 

3. Did PG&E violate the prohibition on ex parte communications in 

I.11-02-016, I.11-11-009 and I.12-01-007, as alleged by the City 

of San Bruno, in the following motions? 

a. Motion of the City of San Bruno for an Order to Show Cause 

Why Pacific Gas and Electric Company Should Not Be Held 

in Violation of Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 

8.3(b) (Rule Against Ex Parte Communications) and for 

Sanctions and Fees, filed on July 28, 2014. 

b. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on City of San Bruno’s 

Motion for an Order to Show Cause as to Why Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company Should Not Be Held in Violation of 

Commission Rule of Practice and Procedure 8.3(b) and for 

Sanctions and Fees, filed on November 10, 2014. 

4. If violations are found in #3 above, what sanctions should be imposed? 

The issue of sanctions to be imposed encompasses consideration of Pub. Util. 

Code § 2107, which sets a $500 minimum and a $50,000 maximum fine for each offense, 

and § 2108, which provides that every day is a separate offense. It also encompasses 

consideration of the five factors to consider in assessing fines, as identified in the 

Affiliate Rulemaking Decision, D.98-12-075, as follows: 

a. How many days did each violation continue? 

b. What harm was caused by virtue of the violations? This 

includes harm to the integrity of the regulatory process.

c. What was the utility’s conduct in preventing, detecting, 

correcting, disclosing and rectifying the violation?

d. What amount of fine will achieve the objective of deterrence?

e. What fine or sanction has the Commission imposed under 

reasonably comparable factual circumstances?

Also, the issue of sanctions may encompass the consideration of any or all other remedies 

available to the Commission, including remedies pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 701. 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 7

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

8

4. Category

The category of this proceeding is adjudicatory. Accordingly, ex parte

communications are prohibited pursuant to Rule 8.3(b). 

5. Preliminary Determination of Need for Hearing 

It is preliminarily determined that evidentiary hearings will be needed in this 

proceeding. However, given PG&E’s admissions of ex parte violations in its filings, this 

OII may be conducted as an OSC on the violations, either with or without hearings. 

6. Schedule 

Pursuant to Rule 7.6(a), appeals of the categorization of this investigation, if any, 

are to be filed and served within 10 days of the date this order is issued.

Respondent PG&E may file comment on the preliminary determination of need 

for evidentiary hearings, issues, and schedule within ten days of the date this order is 

issued. Other persons who intend to move for party status may also file comment on 

these matters within ten days of the date this order is issued, provided that such comment 

is accompanied by written motion for party status (See Rule 1.4(a)(4) and (b)) and such 

motion is granted. 

A prehearing conference shall be set as soon as practicable after a Commissioner 

and Administrative Law Judge are assigned to this proceeding. 

The schedule for taking testimony and briefing shall be determined by the 

assigned Commissioner, and may be modified by the assigned ALJ as required to 

promote the efficient and fair resolution of the investigation. It is expected that the 

investigation will be resolved no later than 12 months from the date this investigation is 

instituted, pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1701.2(e).

7. Service of OII 

This OII shall be served on the Official Service List for the proceedings that are 

implicated by the identified violations of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, as follows: 

 R.09-01-019; R.11-02-019 

 A.09-12-020; A.09-09-021; A.09-12-002; A.10-02-028; A.14-02-008; 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 8

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

9

 I.12-01-007; I.11-02-016; I.11-11-009 

Service of the OII does not confer party status or place a person who has received 

such service on the Official Service List for this proceeding.

8. Addition to Official Service List

Addition to the official service list is governed by Rule 1.9(f) of the Commission’s 

Rules. 

Any person will be added to the “Information Only” category of the official 

service list upon request, for electronic service of all documents in the proceeding, and 

should do so promptly in order to ensure timely service of comments and other 

documents and correspondence in the proceeding. (See Rule 1.9(f).) The request must 

be sent to the Process Office by e-mail (process_office@cpuc.ca.gov) or letter (Process 

Office, California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, 

California 94102). Please include the Docket Number of this rulemaking in the request. 

Persons who move for party status (See Rule 1.4) will be added to the “Parties” 

category of the official service list upon granting of such motion. In order to assure 

service of comments and other documents and correspondence in advance of obtaining 

party status, persons should promptly request addition to the “Information Only” category 

as described above; they will be removed from that category upon obtaining party status.

9. Subscription Service 

Persons may monitor the proceeding by subscribing to receive electronic copies of 

documents in this proceeding that are published on the Commission’s website. There is 

no need to be on the official service list in order to use the subscription service. 

Instructions for enrolling in the subscription service are available on the Commission’s 

website at http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov. 

10. Public Advisor

Any person or entity interested in participating in this rulemaking who is 

unfamiliar with the Commission’s procedures should contact the Commission’s Public 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 9

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

10

Advisor in San Francisco at (415) 703-2074 or (866) 849-8390 or e-mail 

public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. The TTY number is (866) 836-7825. 

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. In accordance with Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, the 

Commission institutes this order instituting investigation and orders Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company to appear and show cause why it should not be sanctioned for 

violations of Rule 1.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Article 8 of 

the Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning communications with decisionmakers 

and advisors and Public Utilities Code Sections 1701.2(c) and 1701.3(c). 

2. Comment on the preliminary determination of need for evidentiary hearings, 

issues, and schedule are due within ten days of the date this order is issued. 

3. The Executive Director shall cause this order instituting investigation to be 

served on the official service lists for Rulemaking (R.) R.09-01-019; R.11-02-019; 

Application (A.) A.09-12-020; A.09-09-021; A.09-12-002; A.10-02-028; A.14-02-008; 

Investigation (I.) 12-01-007, I.11-02-016, and I.11-11-009. 

4. The Executive Director shall cause a copy of this order instituting investigation 

to be served by certified mail on the Respondent, PG&E, at:

Anthony Early Hyun Park 

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer General Counsel

 and President PG&E Corporation 

PG&E Corporation 77 Beale Street 

77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94105 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Nick Stavropoulos Geisha Williams 

President, Gas President, Electric 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

77 Beale Street 77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 10

of 11
I.15-11-015 L/cdl

11

This order is effective today.

Dated November 19, 2015, at San Francisco, California. 

MICHAEL PICKER 

 President 

CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL 

CARLA J. PETERMAN 

LIANE M. RANDOLPH 

 Commissioners 

I abstain.

/s/ MICHEL PETER FLORIO 

 Commissioner 

EXHIBIT 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1821-1 Filed: 05/02/19 Entered: 05/02/19 18:25:22 Page 11

of 11