BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE … · SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION 5241 Spring Mountain Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89150-0002 Telephone: (702) 876-7293 ... confidential under

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Improve Public Access to Public Records Pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

Rulemaking 14-11-001

(Filed November 6, 2014)

JOINT OPENING COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

(U 338 E), SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (U 904 G), SAN DIEGO GAS &

ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902 M), PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E),

AND SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION (U 905 G) ON THE APRIL 2017 PROPOSED

GENERAL ORDER 66-D

JANET S. COMBS CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-1337 Facsimile: (626) 302-1935 E-mail: [email protected]

MELISSA A. HOVSEPIAN Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 555 West Fifth Street, GT-14E7 Los Angeles, California 90013-1046 Telephone: (213) 244-3978 Facsimile: (213) 629-9620 E-mail: [email protected]

PETER VAN MIEGHEM CHRISTOPHER J. WARNER Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 973-2902 Facsimile: (415) 973-5520 E-mail: [email protected]

KYLE O. STEPHENS Attorney for SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION 5241 Spring Mountain Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89150-0002 Telephone: (702) 876-7293 Facsimile: (702) 252-7283 E-mail: [email protected]

Dated: May 10, 2017

1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW

Pursuant to the Assigned Commissioner’s Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling, dated April 28,

2017 (“AC’s Ruling”),1 Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), Southern California Gas

Company (“SoCalGas”), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”), Pacific Gas & Electric

Company (“PG&E”), and Southwest Gas Corporation (“Southwest Gas”) (collectively, “Joint Energy

Utilities”) hereby submit their opening comments on the Proposed General Order 66-D (“Proposed GO

66-D”). First and foremost, the Joint Energy Utilities strongly support the applicability of the rights of

administrative appeal in Section 6.0 to both information submitters and requestors, but do have some

concerns about Proposed GO 66-D.

II. SECTION 4.4 SHOULD BE REVISED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED

As written, Section 4.4 of Proposed GO 66-D, does not adequately protect information that is

confidential under law or California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) rules and therefore

should not be publicly disclosed. Section 4.4 provides that all information in the Commission’s

possession is “available for public inspection unless deemed to be exempt by the [California Public

Records Act or “CPRA”)], California Government Code Section 6254, et al, and/or an applicable

privilege.” However, the exemptions in Section 6254 and the CPRA itself are not an exhaustive list of

legally protected confidential information that should not be made public. Other statutes and

Commission rules and decisions protect certain categories of confidential data from disclosure even

where not necessarily subject to a categorical or discretionary exemption under CPRA. For example,

Public Utilities Code Section 454.5(g) requires the Commission to ensure the confidentiality of market-

sensitive energy procurement information. Likewise, Commission Decisions 11-07-056, 11-08-045 and

14-05-016 provide for specific protection of customer-specific data, including energy usage data, from

public disclosure pursuant to various statutory requirements, including Public Utilities Code Section

8380, Civil Code Section 1798 (California Information Practices Act) and numerous other Commission

decisions as well as the California Constitution.2 In addition to these additional statutory and regulatory

protections for confidential data, California Government Code Section 6255(a) gives the Commission

1 See, AC’s Ruling, p. 24. 2 See list of applicable Commission and statutory customer privacy rules and laws summarized at D.11-07-056,

Attachment B.

2

discretion to determine that the public interest in disclosing a record outweighs the public interest in not

disclosing it:

(a) The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (emphasis added)

The Commission should explicitly reference these additional statutes, rules and regulations,

including Government Code Section 6255 in Section 4.4 of Proposed GO 66-D. This would confirm

that under law and regulatory requirements in addition to the CPRA, the Commission has the authority

to not publicly release information that is confidential by law or regulation even when it is not subject to

a categorical exemption under CPRA.

As such, the Joint Energy Utilities recommend that the Commission revise the language in

Section 4.4 in Proposed GO 66-D as follows:

Exemptions to the CPRA: Information in possession of the Commission are is available for public inspection deemed to be exempt by the Commission from inspection per unless the Commission deems it to be exempt from inspection pursuant to (1) the exemptions in the CPRA, at Government Code Sections 6254, 6255 et al, (2) federal and/or state law and regulations and Commission decisions, and/or (3) an applicable privilege or attorney work product rules.

III. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVISE PROPOSED GO 66-D TO BETTER ACCOUNT FOR BURDENS ASSOCIATED WITH VOLUMINOUS OR COMPLEX DOCUMENTS

Proposed GO 66-D does not address the need to provide a streamlined process for submission of

records or information that are unusually complex or voluminous. Joint Energy Utilities and other

parties have requested that the Commission adopt a streamlined process in such cases to avoid

unnecessary costs and some delays.3 The Commission previously acknowledged the need to consider

this issue:

Several parties note that certain types of records and information, such as those that are unusually complex or voluminous, may present difficulties in identifying and marking confidential information, and accordingly there may need to be exceptions to the confidentiality designation rules set forth in the proposed decision. (See, e.g. Joint Utilities Reply Comments on Proposed Decision at 2, citing to Comments of SCE/PG&E.)

3 See, e.g., Joint Energy Utilities’ Opening Comments on Phase 2A Draft Proposal, filed on March 3, 2017;

Joint Opening Comments of SCE and PG&E on Proposed Decision of President Picker, filed on July 18, 2016; and Reply Comments of Consolidated Communications of California Company, filed on March 24, 2017.

3

This would be an appropriate refinement to consider in this proceeding going forward. In the meantime, to the extent that such records or information are being presented in response to a Commission data request, the submitting entity can request additional time to comply with the request. D.16-08-024, pp. 24-25.

To be clear, Joint Energy Utilities are not requesting an outright exemption to the requirement to

mark documents confidential, but simply a provisional approach to voluminous or complex documents

and information that are not yet the subject of a CPRA request. A provisional approach in such cases is

crucial. As noted previously, since the issuance of D.16-08-024 on August 25, 2016, the Joint Energy

Utilities have repeatedly had to perform intensive and time-consuming reviews to identify and mark

confidential information in certain types of submissions. This has both required considerable utility

resources, and resulted in some delays in responding to Commission Staff. For example, the Safety and

Enforcement Division (“SED”) regularly requests that PG&E provide gas transmission “as-built”

construction packages. In 2016 alone, SED requested 79 of these packages. Each package is lengthy –

comprising multiple documents and hundreds of pages – and contains numerous instances of

confidential information, e.g., sensitive critical infrastructure information, throughout the documents,

including as-built drawings, GIS coordinates of facilities, and detailed maps. Identifying and marking

each instance of confidential information in such cases requires considerable time and expense.

Recently, PG&E provided a job file to SED that contained over 2000 pages and took over 5 days to

review, identify, and mark the confidential information. The time and effort required to mark each

package frequently results in delays in providing the requested materials to SED. The benefits of this

expenditure of resources are doubtful, considering these construction packages may never be the subject

of a CPRA request, and reasonable alternatives are available that meet the intent of D.16-08-024.

Moreover, information submitters cannot reasonably or readily mark certain types of information, such

as GIS mapping data or some electronically submitted forms that do not permit the submitting party to

mark individual fields or specific information as confidential.

To streamline the process and avoid undue cost and delay, the Joint Energy Utilities propose that

the Commission revise Section 3.2 as follows:

“Second, submission of information per Section 3.3 (submission in a formal proceeding) and Section 3.4 (submission consistent with a determination of confidentiality in a decision) of this GO are exempted from the requirements of this Section. Third, in extraordinary cases, such as a data response to Commission staff that includes a significant volume or complexity of records, information submitters may provisionally designate such material as confidential, consistent with the following:

4

(1) Commission Staff must agree with the information submitter that it would be too burdensome or impractical to individually identify and mark each instance of confidential information in response to a particular Commission request or routine category of requests.

(2) The information submitter may provisionally describe the categories of confidential information contained within the submission and designate the entire submission confidential instead of individually identifying and marking each instance of confidential information, provided that the description is sufficiently specific that a reviewer may readily identify the material claimed as confidential.

(3) The information submitter must provide a sample of each category of confidential information found in the submission.

(4) The information submitter shall specify that it has applied this process in the accompanying declaration or motion.

(5) Should the information be the subject of a future CPRA request, the Commission may require the information submitter to follow the standard approach under Section 3.2.”

Although the AC’s Ruling rejects a proposal for “not requiring identification of confidential

information before submission” (AC’s Ruling, p. 13), the AC’s Ruling does not directly address the

proposal presented herein by Joint Energy Utilities, who—it bears repeating—are not asking for an

outright exemption to the requirement to mark documents confidential, but simply for a provisional

approach for voluminous or complex documents and information that are not yet the subject of a CPRA

request. Such an approach is critical to avoid unnecessary cost and delay.

IV. SECTION 5.5(C) SHOULD BE REVISED TO LENGTHEN THE TIME FOR APPEAL

Section 5.5(c) of Proposed GO 66-D provides that, the information submitter may appeal to the

Commission for reconsideration by submitting a Public Information Appeal Form (“Appeal Form”)

within five days of receiving notice that a request for confidentiality has been denied in whole or part

per Section 6.4 Five days generally is not sufficient to prepare an appeal fully describing the reasons

why the Commission should disclose information the submitter has classified as confidential.

Information submitters need to provide legal arguments and the claim(s) of confidentiality may be

complex and depend on multiple legal bases for protection. In order for the Commission’s Legal

Division (“Legal Division”) to prepare a draft resolution that properly informs the Commission of the

4 Proposed GO 66-D, §5.5(c), p. 9.

5

confidentiality issues at stake before a vote, the Commission should provide a reasonable amount of

time for preparation of an appeal. The Joint Energy Utilities believe that 15 days would strike an

appropriate balance of timely processing of a CPRA request, due process for information submitters, and

serving the public interest in disclosing only such information that should not be maintained as

confidential. A five-day appeal period creates a heightened risk of an inadvertent disclosure by the

Commission of confidential information, which may be harmful not only to the information submitter,

but also the public interest. For example, disclosure of cyber security information, critical energy

infrastructure information, or private customer information would have broader negative implications

affecting the public interest. The Commission would find it more useful when considering an appeal if

the information submitters’ legal arguments provided in the Appeal Form are well-reasoned and

thoroughly researched. Indeed, with more time, information submitters may find that further legal

research persuades them to not submit an appeal, which would alleviate additional administrative burden

from Commission Staff. With only a short five days period, information submitters will be inclined to

err on the side of bringing an appeal to preserve their rights, where further research may have resulted in

a decision not to do so.

Further, 15 days for an appeal with legal arguments is consistent with the time permitted to

submit other pleadings before the Commission involving issues of law.5 For the same reason, 15 days is

appropriate for appeals submitted under Section 5.5(b) of Proposed GO 66-D.

The AC’s Ruling, at p.23, requests that parties specifically comment on the format for and

submission of an Appeal Form. The Joint Energy Utilities recommend use of a workshop to develop the

actual Appeal Form. Nonetheless, the Joint Energy Utilities strongly recommend that information

submitters are permitted to provide legal arguments for their claim(s) of confidentiality, including

citations to relevant statutory and case law in an attachment to the Appeal Form, or on the form itself

and space must not be unreasonably limited. Submission of the detailed basis for confidentiality by the

information submitter is key to preservation of the right of appeal. Joint Energy Utilities recommend

that the Commission accept appeals in any of the ways proposed—by email, online, or U.S. mail.

5 See, e.g., Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 11.1(e)(“Responses to written motions must be

filed and served within 15 days of the date that the motion was served. . . .”); Rule 16.1(a)(“Application for rehearing of a Commission order or decision shall be filed within 30 days after the date the Commission mails the order or decision. . . .”).

6

V. SECTION 5.4(B) SHOULD BE REVISED TO EXTEND THE TIME TO MARK DOCUMENTS CONFIDENTIAL IN THE CONTEXT OF A CPRA REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 5.4(b) of Proposed GO 66-D, in the context of a CPRA request, information

submitters must provide a declaration and mark the confidential portions of documents within five (5)

days of notice by the Legal Division without any opportunity for an extension.6 This short time period

without an extension is unnecessarily inflexible, particularly when complex and/or voluminous records

are involved. While an initial response within five days may be possible if the confidentiality bases and

designations are straightforward, as noted by the Legal Division itself, there has been an upward trend of

CPRA requests to the Commission asking for complex and/or voluminous records, and it takes more

legal resources to process such requests.7 The requirements of Section 5.4(b) would likely involve

similar resources and time for the information submitters to comply. As noted in the Legal Division’s

Conference of California Public Utility Counsel (“CCPUC”) 2015 presentation on this subject and the

CPRA Guidelines on the Commission’s website, the Legal Division sends an initial response letter to

comply with Government Code Section 6253(c)’s 10-day notice to the information requestor.8 The

Legal Division notes that “’[i]n unusual circumstances’ we can take an additional 14 days to make that

initial response.”9 This is consistent with Government Code Section 6253(c), which provides an

extension for an additional 14 days in circumstances that include “[t]he need to search for, collect, and

appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a

single request.”10 Moreover, the Legal Division emphasizes, “[t]his is just our initial response, not the

actual production of documents.”11

6 Proposed GO 66-D, §5.4(b). 7 See Commission Legal Division presentation at the 2015 CCPUC, “How the Commission Responds to PRA

Requests,” dated Oct. 19, 2015, p. 13 (“We have seen a marked increase in both the number of requests we receive and in their breadth.”); see also id. (“In 2010, we received 234 PRA requests and subpoenas. This year [(2015)] we are on track to receive 468 – exactly double.”); see also id. at p. 6 (noting that for complicated PRA requests, additional legal resources are necessary to process them, including at least one lawyer, an Assistant General Counsel, and in rare cases, the General Counsel).

8 Id. at p. 7; http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=2659. 9 Commission Legal Division presentation at the 2015 CCPUC, “How the Commission Responds to PRA

Requests,” dated Oct. 19, 2015, p. 7. 10 Gov’t. Code §6253(c)(2). 11 Commission Legal Division presentation at the 2015 CCPUC, “How the Commission Responds to PRA

Requests,” dated Oct. 19, 2015, p. 7.

7

Accordingly, information submitters should be allowed an extension if they cannot reasonably

meet the five-day response time in Section 5.4(b) of Proposed GO 66-D. Because the Legal Division

provides only an initial response–not the production–itself within a 10-day period, and the CPRA

already recognizes the need for a 14-day extension when voluminous records are at issue, the

Commission should apply similar considerations to information submitters responsible for declaring and

designating confidential information. Marking complex and/or voluminous records for confidentiality

has more relevance to the actual production of responsive CPRA records, not the initial response. The

CPRA does not specify a time period for production – only that the agency “shall make the records

promptly available”12 – so the marking of confidential information within a five-day period without the

possibility of an extension is unnecessary and onerous. The Legal Division recognizes that “[t]he length

of time a request takes depends on the complexity of the request and staff workload, among other

things.”13 These same considerations should be taken into account when setting deadlines for

information submitters under Proposed GO 66-D.

Therefore, the Commission should revise Section 5.4(b) to allow a 14-day extension for

information submitters to provide a confidentiality declaration if complex and/or voluminous records are

at issue, with the possibility of a longer extension for the marking of confidential information,

depending on the complexity and/or volume of records. Consistent with the CPRA, in such “unusual

circumstances,” 14 days is a reasonable amount of time for information submitters to sufficiently

analyze and claim confidentiality in a declaration so that the Legal Division can provide its initial

response letter in a timely manner. The possibility of a longer extension for the marking of complex

and/or voluminous records is also consistent with the CPRA’s distinction between the initial response

versus the actual production of documents, which depends on many factors (e.g., can the document in

fact be marked and redacted, such as mapping data, GIS shape file, etc.). Proposed GO 66-D should not

be so inflexible that it does not account for reasonable circumstances that may justifiably need more

12 Gov’t. Code §6253(b). See also Commission Legal Division presentation at the 2015 CCPUC, “How the

Commission Responds to PRA Requests,” dated Oct. 19, 2015, p. 10 (“The PRA ‘does not specify when records must be produced to a requesting party.’”)(quoting Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. v. Dept. of General Services, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1340, 1349 (1997)).

13 Commission Legal Division presentation at the 2015 CCPUC, “How the Commission Responds to PRA Requests,” dated Oct. 19, 2015, p. 10.

8

time for responses and production. The Joint Energy Utilities are not aware of any other state agency

that imposes such inflexible standards in complying with the CPRA.14

VI. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REVISE SECTION 3.4 TO ALLOW PARTIES SUBMITTING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO RELY ON THE EXCLUSIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN SECTION 2 OF GO 66-C AS AN INTERIM STEP

Section 7.1 of the Amended Scoping Memo indicates that the list of “exclusions” currently

included in Section 2 of GO 66-C will be not be included in GO 66-D.15 Many of the GO 66-C

exclusions are based on statutory provisions and are relied on by the Joint Energy Utilities, as well as

other utilities. Specifically, the Joint Energy Utilities rely on the GO 66-C exclusions, among other

legal bases, to address the confidentiality of information that is not included in D.06-06-066 as a result

of the passage of time.16 For example, since the issuance of D.06-06-066 more than eleven years ago,

there have been substantial changes in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) markets

necessitating market-sensitive pricing and strategy information regarding products that did not exist at

that time. For example, the Joint Energy Utilities have confidential strategies for convergence bidding

in the CAISO markets, but because convergence bidding did not exist 11 years ago, the D.06-06-066

matrix does not mention it. Nonetheless, such strategies would be protected market-sensitive electric

procurement information, not only under Public Utilities Code Section 454.5(g), but also under GO 66-

C’s substantive exclusion under Section 2.2(b), which protects “[r]eports, records and information

requested or required by the Commission which, if revealed, would place the regulated company at an

unfair business disadvantage.” Similarly, for procurement cost information related to greenhouse gas

14 See, e.g., California Air Resources Board (CARB) Guidelines for Accessing Public Records, available at

https://www.arb.ca.gov/html/pubrecsguidelines.htm: ARB will determine within 10 days after receipt of the request, whether it has records responsive to the

request, and will inform you of its decision and the reasons for the decision. The initial 10-day period may be extended for up to an additional 14 days if the ARB needs to . . . inspect voluminous records. . . . Whenever possible, ARB will provide records at the time the determination is made to disclose them. If immediate disclosure is not possible, ARB will provide an estimated date when the records will be available, and will endeavor to provide the records within a reasonable period of time. (emphasis added)

See also Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice Guidelines for Access to Public Records (Mar. 2012), p. 2, available at https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/consumers/pra_guidelines.pdf.

15 Amended Scoping Memo at p. 18. 16 It should be noted that certain utilities were not parties to D.06-06-066, including SoCalGas and Southwest

Gas, because D.06-06-066 applies to electric utilities and service providers.

9

(“GHG”) allowances and offsets, in addition to Public Utilities Code Section 454.5(g) and relevant

Commission Decisions (e.g. D.14-10-033 and D.15-10-032), the Joint Energy Utilities may also rely on

GO 66-C, Section 2.2(b) as another basis for confidentiality. In these and many other cases, the Joint

Energy Utilities have relied on the broader exclusions in GO 66-C to protect information that is clearly

market sensitive, and the disclosure of which would harm customers.

The Joint Energy Utilities recognize that as a part of the process to implement Proposed GO 66-

D, the Commission intends to undertake an effort to develop new or additional confidentiality matrices,

similar to the matrix included with D.06-06-066.17 However, in the interim, the Commission should

continue to allow parties submitting confidential information to rely on the exclusions that are included

in Section 2 of GO 66-C. These exclusions are well known inside and outside the Commission, have

been in place for more than three decades, and, as is clear from the language, are primarily rooted in

statutory provisions. Once new confidentiality matrices are developed, the Commission can terminate

the GO 66-C exclusions. However, for the interim period, these well-established exclusions should

continue to be available to use as a basis for making a confidentiality claim. This is also consistent with

the rules in D.06-06-066, which the Proposed GO 66-D intends to preserve:

GO 66-C shall continue to apply to data not addressed in the Matrix. . . . Other portions of GO 66-C not related to electric procurement will remain in place unless and until we change them. Thus, for data not included in the Matrix, a party seeking confidential treatment should continue to file a motion [or submit a declaration where appropriate] seeking leave from the Commission to retain such material under seal. The filing [/submitting] party shall bear the burden of proving that its information deserves such treatment.18

The Joint Energy Utilities propose that the Commission revise the language Section 3.4 of

Proposed GO 66-D as follows:

c) Between the date of the issuance of this GO and the development and approval by the Commission of confidential matrices described in Section 3.4(a) above, the exclusions identified in Section 2 of GO 66-C shall remain in effect as a basis for designating certain information as confidential. The exclusions in Section 2 of GO 66-C shall no longer be a basis for asserting confidentiality after the Commission approves confidentiality matrices as described in Section 3.4(a).

17 Amended Scoping Memo at p. 16. 18 D.06-06-066, pp.21-22 (as modified by D.08-04-023, p. 21).

10

VII. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Joint Energy Utilities respectfully request that the

Commission revise Proposed GO 66-D as we recommend.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Joint Energy Utilities,

JANET S. COMBS CAROL A. SCHMID-FRAZEE

/s/ Carol A. Schmid-Frazee By: Carol A. Schmid-Frazee

Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626) 302-1337 Facsimile: (626) 302-6962 E-mail: [email protected]

DATE: May 10, 2017

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Improve Public Access to Public Records Pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

Rulemaking 14-11-001 (Filed November 6, 2014)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of JOINT OPENING COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338 E), SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (U 904 G), SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902 M), PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E), AND SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION (U 905 G) ON THE APRIL 2017 PROPOSED GENERAL ORDER 66-D on all parties identified on the attached service list(s) R.14-11-001. Service was effected by one or more means indicated below:

Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail address.

Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by hand or overnight courier to the offices of the commissioner(s) or other addressee(s).

ALJ: Rafael L. Lirag CPUC 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

Executed this May 10, 2017, at Rosemead, California.

/s/ Mildred King Mildred King Legal Administrative Assistant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

CPUC Home

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONService Lists

PROCEEDING: R1411001 - CPUC - OIR TO IMPROV FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: APRIL 28, 2017

Download the Comma-delimited File About Comma-delimited Files

Back to Service Lists Index

Parties

C. ANTHONY BRAUN CANDICE TAYLOR BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN, P.C. LYFT, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 FOR: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT (IID) FOR: LYFT, INC.

DIANE CONKLIN PETER G. ESPOSITO SPOKESPERSON CRESTED BUTTE CATALYSTS LLC MUSSEY GRADE ROAD ALLIANCE PO BOX 668 EMAIL ONLY 1181 GOTHIC CORRIDOR (CR 317) EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 FOR: MUSSEY GRADE ROAD ALLIANCE FOR: LODI GAS STORAGE, LLC (INDEPENDENT STORAGE PROVIDERS)

KYLE O. STEPHENS MELISSA A. HOVSEPIAN ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL SR COUNSEL SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 5241 SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD, LVA-110 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, GT-14E7 LAS VEGAS, NV 89150 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 FOR: SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (SOCAL) AND SAN DIEGO GAS (SDG&E)

MELLISSA HOVSEPIAN JAVIER RIVERA SENIOR COUNSEL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1400 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNAI EDISON COMPANY FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

Page 1 of 10CPUC - Service Lists - R1411001

5/10/2017https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/servicelists/R1411001_82734.htm

(SDG&E)

MARIA C. SEVERSON, ESQ. JOHN W. LESLIE, ESQ ATTORNEY ATTORNEY AGUIRRE & SEVERSON LLP DENTONS US LLP 501 WEST BROADWAY, STE. 1050 4655 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, SUITE 700 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-3591 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 FOR: RUTH HENDRICKS FOR: SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA (US), L.P.

JESUS G. ROMAN JESUS G. ROMAN ASSISTANT GEN. COUNSEL - WEST REGION ATTORNEY VERIZON VERIZON 15505 SAND CANYON AVE. D201 15505 SAND CANYON AVE. IRVINE, CA 92618 IRVINE, CA 92618 FOR: VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC. (U1002C) FOR: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS / MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.

KRISTIN L. JACOBSON THERESA CHO SPRINT / NEXTEL DEPUTY CITY ATTY-OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTY 201 MISSION STREET, SUITE 1500 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 1 CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 234 FOR: SPRINT/NEXTEL SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 FOR: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

LISA-MARIE CLARK LISA P. TSE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ATTORNEY LEGAL DIVISION RASIER-CA, LLC ROOM 4300 1455 MARKET STREET, 4TH FL. 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 FOR: RASIER-CA, LLC FOR: ORA

NANCY ALLRED THOMAS LONG ATTORNEY AT LAW LEGAL DIRECTOR UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 1455 MARKET ST., 4TH FLOOR. 785 MARKET ST., STE. 1400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 FOR: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR: THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK RAISER-CA, LLC

JAMES BIRKELUND JAMES W. MCTARNAGHAN PRESIDENT ATORNEY SMALL BUSNESS UTILITY ADVOCATES PERKINS COIE LLP 548 MARKET ST., STE. 11200 505 HOWARD ST., STE. 1000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 FOR: SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES FOR: TIME WARNER CABLE INFORMATION SERVICES (CALIFORNIA), LLC (U6874C) (TWCIS)

PETER VAN MIEGHEM DONALD P. HILLA ATTORNEY AT LAW SR. REGULATORY COUNSEL PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA 77 BEALE STREET, RM 3107, B30A 150 POST ST., STE. 442



SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 FOR: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR: CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA

WALID ABDUL-RAHIM JEANNE B. ARMSTRONG AVP & SR. LEGAL COUNSEL ATTORNEY AT&T CALIFORNIA GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI & DAY LLP 430 BUSH STREET, 3RD FL. 505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108-2728 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: AT&T SERVICES, INC. FOR: CTIA-THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION, EXTENET SYSTEMS (CALIFORNIA) LLC AND TW TELECOM OF CALIFORNIA LP., WILD GOOSE STORAGE, LLC (INDEPENDENT STORAGE PROVIDERS)

JOHN L. CLARK JOHN MCINTYRE ATTORNEY ATTORNEY GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI & DAY LLP GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP 505 SANSOME STREET, STE. 900 505 SANSOME ST., STE. 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: CHARTER FIBERLINK CA-CCO, LLC FOR: INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS (U6878C) ASSOCIATION (IEPA)

JOSEPH M. KARP, ESQ. MARI LANE ATTORNEY NOSSAMAN LLP WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, STE. 3400 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, STE 3500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: SIDE.CR, LLC FOR: GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY

PATRICK J. FERGUSON PATRICK M. ROSVALL ATTORNEY ATTORNEY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP COOPER, WHITE & COOPER LLP 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800 201 CALIFORNIA STREET, 17TH FL. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: LIBERTY UTILITIES (CALPECO) LLC / FOR: SUREWEST TELEPHONE & THE SMALL LECS CALPINE CORPORATION

SARAH DEYOUNG MARTIN MATTES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NOSSAMAN LLP CALTEL 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, STE. 3400 50 CALIFORNIA ST., STE. 1500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-4799 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION (CWA) FOR: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CALTEL)

ONKI KWAN, ESQ. MEGAN M. MYERS BAYVIEW / HUNTERS POINT COMMUNITY LEGAL COUNSEL 4322 3RD STREET LAW OFFICES OF MEGAN M. MYERS SASN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 110 OXFORD STREET FOR: BAYVIEW/HUNTERS POINT COMMUNTIY SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94134 LEGAL FOR: CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES (CEERT)

ANITA TAFF-RICE STEVEN R. MYERS ATTORNEY ATTORNEY



ICOMMLAW MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 1547 PALOS VERDES, NO. 298 555 12TH STREET, SUITE 1500 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 OAKLAND, CA 94607 FOR: EXTENET SYSTEMS (CALIFORNIA), LLC FOR: CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND TW TELECOM OF CALIFORNIA LP

LEON M. BLOOMFIELD CHARLIE BORN ATTORNEY MGR - GOVN'T & EXTERNAL AFFAIRS LAW OFFICES OF LEON M. BLOOMFIELD FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 1901 HARRISON ST., STE. 1400 9260 E. STOCKTON BLVD. OAKLAND, CA 94612 ELK GROVE, CA 95624-1456 FOR: T-MOBILE WEST LLC D/B/A T-MOBILE FOR: FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS

LESLA LEHTONEN JEDEDIAH J. GIBSON SVP & GENERAL COUNSEL ATTORNEY AT LAW CALIF. CABLE & TELECOMM. ASSN. ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP 1001 K STREET, 2ND FLOOR 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3832 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-5905 FOR: CALIFORNIA CABLE & FOR: PACIFICORP TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIAITON (CALCABLE)

ANN L. TROWBRIDGE ATTORNEY AT LAW DAY CARTER & MURPHY LLP 3620 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE, SUITE 205 SACRAMENTO, CA 95864 FOR: GILL RANCH STORAGE, LLC (INDEPENDENT STORAGE PROVIDERS)

Information Only

ANDREW BROWN BRUCE SMITH ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP GRC & REGULATORY SUPPORT EMAIL ONLY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

CASE COORDINATION CATHIE ALLEN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PACIFICORP EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, OR 00000

EMILY SANGI ETTA LOCKEY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP SENIOR ATTORNEY EMAIL ONLY PACIFICORP EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

GREGORY S.G. KLATT INNA VINOGRADOV ATTORNEY AT LAW ICOMMLAW DOUGLASS & LIDDELL EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000



JANE WHANG JENNIFER W. SUMMERS DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP CALIFORNIA REGULATORY AFFAIRS EMAIL ONLY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

JIM TOMLINSON JOSEPH W. MITCHELL, PH.D. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP M-BAR TECHNOLOGIES AND CONSULTING, LLC EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

LISA TSE MIKE CADE COUNSEL, REGULATORY ALCANTAR & KAHL UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

ROBERT A. LAURIE SARA STECK MYERS ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL - ENERGY LAW OFFICES OF SARA STECK MYERS IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

SUZANNE TOLLER VIDHYA PRABHAKARAN ATTORNEY ATTORNEY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP DAVIS WRIGHT & TREMAINE, LLP EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

MELISSA SLAWSON CHRISTOPHER SCHINDLER GENERAL COUNSEL HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP BLUE JAY WIRELESS, LLC COLUMBIA SQUARE EMAIL ONLY 555 THIRTEENTH STREET, N.W. EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000-0000 WASHINGTON, DC 20004

JEAN HAWLEY KENNARD B. WOODS FRIEND, HUDAK& HARRIS, LLP ATTORNEY 3 RAVINIA DRIVE, SUITE. 1700 FRIEND, HUDAK & HARRIS, LLP ATLANTA, GA 30346-2131 THREE RAVINIA DRIVE, SUITE. 1700 ATLANTA, GA 30346-2131

KELLY CRANDALL LINDA C. STINAR EQ RESEARCH, LLC DIR - REGULATORY AFFAIRS 1580 LINCOLN STEET, SUITE 880 CENTURYLINK DENVER, CO 80203 6700 VIA AUSTI PARKWAY LAS VEGAS, NV 89119



CATHERINE MAZZEO VALERIE ONTIVEROZ ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL REGULATORY MGR / CALIFORNIA SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION 5241 SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD 5241 SPRING MOUNTAIN ROAD, LVB-105 LAS VEGAS, NV 89150-0002 LAS VEGAS, NV 89150-0002

PRISCILA CASTILLO KASHA JACKSON D. MCNEILL DECPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF WATER & POWER 555 WEST FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1400 111 NORTH HOPE ST., ROOM 340 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

JEFF SALAZAR KAREN LEE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 555 W. FIFTH STREET, GT14D6 555 W. 5TH STREET, SUITE 1400 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

RONALD VAN DER LEEDEN JOHN A. BRIDGE DIR. - REGULATORY AFFAIRS HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY 1999 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1400 555 W. FIFTH STREET, GT14D6 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

NORMAN A. PEDERSEN EDWARD N. JACKSON ATTORNEY AT LAW DIR - REVENUE REQUIREMENTS HANNA AND MORTON LLP LIBERTY UTILITIES (PARK WATER) CORP. 444 SOUTH FLOWER ST., SUITE 1500 9750 WASHBURN ROAD / PO BOX 7002 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2916 DOWNEY, CA 90241-7002

DANIEL W. DOUGLASS CHARLES CARRATHERS, III ATTORNEY FRONTIER CALIFORNIA INC. DOUGLASS & LIDDELL 2535 W. HILLCREST DRIVE 4766 PARK GRANADA, SUITE 209 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 91320 CALABASAS, CA 91302 FOR: WESTERN POWER TRADING FORUM

DON C. EACHUS CAROL SCHMID-FRAZEE VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2535 W. HILLCREST DRIVE, CAM21LS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON NEWBURY PARK, CA 91320 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE./PO BOX 800 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

CASE ADMINISTRATION PATRICIA A. CIRUCCI SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY DIRECTOR & MANAGING ATTORNEY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX 800 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE./PO BOX 800 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

MARIA BYRNES MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE LEGAL ASSISTANT AGUIRRE MORRIS & SEVERSON LLP AGUIRRE & SEVERSON LLP 501 W. BROADWAY, STE. 1050 501 WEST BROADWAY, STE. 1050 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-3591 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101



DONALD C. LIDDELL ESTHER NORTHRUP ATTORNEY STATE REGULATORY AFFAIRS DOUGLASS & LIDDELL COX COMMUNICATIONS 2928 2ND AVENUE 5651 COPLEY DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92111

BRITTNEY LEE CHRISTOPHER SUMMERS REGULATORY CASE ADMIN. REGULATORY AFFAIRS SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32F 9305 LIGHTWAVE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

STEVEN LANGO CENTRAL FILES REGULATORY CASE MGR - II SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 8330 CENTURY PARK CT, CP31-E 8330 CENTURY PARK CT., CP-31H SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1530 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

KEN WITTMAN MARC ZAFFERANO SR. MGR., FINANCE ACCTNG. & REG. CITY ATTORNEY LIBERTY UTILITIES (CALPECO) LLC CITY OF SAN BRUNO 701 NATIONAL AVENUE 567 EL CAMINO REAL TAHOE VISTA, CA 93148 SAN BRUNO, CA 94066

JOHN K. HAWKS ANNA UHLS CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 601 VAN NESS AVE., STE. 2047, MC E3-608 1455 MARKET STREET, 4TH FL. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103

LEXI EATON NEVAREZ PATTY ROBBINS CORPORATE PARALEGAL - REGULATORY UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 1455 MARKET ST., 4TH FLOOR 1455 MARKET STREET, 4TH FL. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103

SELENE HAKOBYAN AMIE BURKHOLDER UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP 1455 MARKET STREET, 4TH FLOOR 345 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2450 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

BLAIRE STOKES MARGARET L. TOBIAS LYFT, INC. TOBIAS LAW OFFICE 185 BERRY STREET, STE. 5000 460 PENNSYLVANIA AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107

BRENDA J. CLARK HUGH OSBORNE DIR - REGULATORY RELATIONS AT&T SERVICES, INC. AT&T SERVICES, INC. 430 BUSH STREET, 3RD FL. NO. 17 430 BUSH STREET, RM. 105 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108

THOMAS SELHORST BRIAN CRAGG



SENIOR PARALEGAL ATTORNEY AT&T CALIFORNIA, INC. GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP 430 BUSH STREET, 3RD FL, NO. 14 505 SANSOME ST., STE. 900 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

CYNTHIA RUSSELL KATIE JORRIE CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 555 MONTGOMERY ST., STE. 816 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

LORI ANNE DOLQUEIST MARK P. SCHREIBER ATTORNEY ATTORNEY NOSSAMAN LLP COOPER, WHITE & COOPER, LLP 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLR. 201 CALIFORNIA STREET, 17TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: SUREWEST / CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS

RACHELLE CHONG SARAH LEEPER SENIOR REGULATORY COUNSEL VP - LEGAL, REGULATORY SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY 360 PINE STREET, SUITE 700 555 MONTGOMERY ST., STE. 816 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 FOR: SIDECAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

ZEB ZANKEL CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS ATTORNEY 425 DIVISADERO ST STE 303 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94117-2242 505 MONTGOMERY STREET, STE. 800 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

ANN H. KIM BRITT K. STROTTMAN PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MEYERS NAVE LAW DEPT 555 12TH STREET, STE. 1500 77 BEALE STREET, RM 3105 / PO BOX 7442 OAKLAND, CA 94607 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120

EMILIE E. DE LA MOTTE NATALIE D. WALES ATTORNEY AT LAW REGULATORY COUNSEL MEYERS NAVE RIBACK SILVER & WILSON CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 555 12TH STREET, STE. 1500 1720 N. FIRST STREET OAKLAND, CA 94607 SAN JOSE, CA 95112

RICHARD H. LEVIN STEVEN CROSBY ATTORNEY AT LAW FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 309 SOUTH MAIN STREET/PO BOX 240 9260 E. STOCKTON BLVD. SEBASTOPOL, CA 95473-0240 ELK GROVE, CA 95624

JOHN SPOMER JORDAN PINJUV CALIFORNIA ISO COUNSEL 250 OUTCROPPING WAY CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR FOLSOM, CA 95630 250 OUTCROPPING WAY



FOLSOM, CA 95630

LEGAL DEPARTMENT DAN GRIFFITHS CALIFORNIA ISO ATTORNEY 250 OUTCROPPING WAY BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. FOLSOM, CA 95630 915 L STREET, SUITE 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

JACQUELINE KINNEY JUSTIN WYNNE FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS ATTORNEY 1201 K STREET, SUITE 1980 BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 915 L STREET, SUITE 1480 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

SCOTT BLAISING STEVEN KELLY ATTORNEY POLICY DIRECTOR BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C. INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS ASSCIATION 915 L STREET, STE. 1480 1215 K STREET, STE. 900 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

LYNN HAUG JAMES W. EWERT ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP LEGAL COUNSEL 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400 CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSN. SACRAMENTO, CA 95816 2701 K STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-5131

GREGGORY L. WHEATLAND GEORGE THOMSON, JR. ATTORNEY FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP 1800 41ST STREET, SUITE N-100 2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400 EVERETT, WA 98201 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-5905

State Service

MICHAEL MINKUS TONY MARINO CPUC - EXECUTIVE DIV. OGA OFFICE OF SENATOR JERRY HILL EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000

VALERIE KAO AMY C. BAKER SED CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENFORCEMENT EMAIL ONLY ROOM 5210 EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

ARTHUR J. O'DONNELL BREWSTER FONG CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENFORCEMENT TRANSPORTATION ENFORCEMENT BRANCH AREA AREA 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214



CHRISTINE J. HAMMOND ED CHARKOWICZ CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LEGAL DIVISION RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENFORCEMENT ROOM 5220 AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

JAMES RALPH JONATHAN KOLTZ CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION PRESIDENT PICKER LEGAL DIVISION ROOM 5037 ROOM 5035 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

JUNAID RAHMAN KE HAO OUYANG CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RISK ASSESSMENT AND ENFORCEMENT UTILITY & PAYPHONE ENFORCEMENT BRANCH AREA AREA 2-E 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

MARTIN M. NAKAHARA RAFAEL L. LIRAG CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ROOM 2001 ROOM 5010 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

SARAH R. THOMAS CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION LEGAL DIVISION ROOM 5033 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214

TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS



Documents

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE … · SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION 5241 Spring Mountain Road Las Vegas, Nevada 89150-0002 Telephone: (702) 876-7293 ... confidential under