by Michael Shellenberger

A former Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) attorney now working for Friends of the Earth (FOE) has threatened action by the California Public Utilities Commission against Environmental Progress for our efforts to expose back-room dealing-making at the scandal-racked agency.

"These are serious violations that if left uncorrected will taint the decisional process," John Lindh claimed in a letter to Environmental Progress attorney Frank Jablonski and me (full letter reproduced below).

I hadn't heard of Lindh until he emailed us. Thirty seconds into reading about him on-line, I couldn't quite believe what I was reading:

"Lindh was a PG&E gas attorney for more than a decade until being hired by the Commission in 2008. His time with the utility coincided with the period during which many of PG&E's alleged gas-system violations occurred," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle.

As background, the ultra-powerful California's Public Utilities Commission is flamboyantly corrupt, secretive, under criminal investigation and headed by individuals who take their orders directly from Governor Jerry Brown.

While at the Commission, Lindh, who oversaw 70 attorneys, worked with Commission's "Safety Officer" Jack Hagan to threaten Commission attorneys who refused to go along with their desire to reduce the fine on PG&E for its San Bruno pipeline explosion that killed eight people:

Lindh reassigned the attorneys after a May 31 confrontation with Hagan in which the safety division chief told them to help him build a case against fining PG&E "or else," according to confidential e-mails from the lawyers that The Chronicle obtained.

Some of the attorneys told Lindh in those e-mails that they felt threatened by Hagan, who has acknowledged that he used to carry a concealed gun in the office.

But wait — it gets worse!

After reassigning the attorneys this month, Lindh publicly asserted that the legal team had wanted off the case. The team's lead attorney, Harvey Morris, angrily disputed that in an e-mail to Lindh that was later leaked, demanding that he stop making "defamatory representations that I and the other attorneys in the San Bruno (matter) voluntarily left the case."

What did Morris say? More SF Chronicle

In his e-mail, Morris said his team did not spend more than two years on the case [against PG&E for the pipeline explosion], drafting hundreds of pages of briefs, so it could walk away from the case at the last minute.

"How could you or anyone else even question our commitment to ensure that such a tragedy should never happen again?" Morris said. "Your statements about us omit any mention of the fact that we refused to sign a reply brief, that we felt was unethical.

"Because you did nothing to resolve our ethical concerns, one attorney asked to be taken off the case, and you then claimed that all of us asked to be reassigned."

... Morris is the second member of the legal team to lash out at commission executives. Last week, attorney Robert Cagen wrote in an e-mail released publicly that Hagan's no-fine proposal was "unlawful."

In other words, it was only after Morris made the issue public that Lindh had to resign. What that means is that until then, Lindh was protected by current President Michael Picker and all of the other Commissioners.

This episode gives a clear view into the deep corruption and rot that pervades every aspect of the Commission's dealings with PG&E.

Now consider that Lindh was the person that FOE's Damon Moglen — who admitted to me on-air that he believes there is a vast global conspiracy by the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency to cover-up the true death toll at Chernobyl — decided to hire.

Now, into that context, comes Lindh sending a menacing email to Environmental Progress's attorney, Frank Jablonski, and myself.

First, in copying decisional staff in a Commissioner's office at the CPUC, you have engaged in an improper ex parte communication about substantive issues in the case.

Consider the role Lindh is attempting to play. He is behaving as though he is still Chief Legal council to the Commission, even though FOE has no more legal rights in this process than Environmental Progress.

Further, Lindh is acting as the enforcer of PG&E's effort to rush its rate hike through the Commission — leaving PG&E to coordinate all of the various anti-nuclear groups who have become intervenors in the process so they can legitimate and normalize what is fundamentally illegitimate and abnormal Commission, process and proceeding.

Lindh is referring to a letter (reprinted in full, with PG&E's letters, below) that I sent in response to PG&E's effort to rush through the Commission its request for a rate hike in exchange for Diablo Canyon before the Commission can be reformed by the California State Legislature.

As you know, the last time a California utility (along with TURN, FOE and ORA) rushed a secretly negotiated rate hike/plant closure deal through the CPUC, the result was an on-going federal and state investigation of suspected criminal activities.

...Given these rising demands for transparency, it is rather audacious for PG&E to now propose holding a private meeting — in PG&E's corporate offices, no less — to negotiate a settlement schedule two days before the first CPUC meeting.

As such, the meeting you are proposing only reinforces the perception that this CPUC proceeding is merely for show.

If, after we achieve reform, you still want to raise electricity rates in exchange for eliminating 21 percent of California’s clean power, then CPUC settlement hearings can proceed with legitimacy, free from the dark cloud that stains all CPUC proceedings, especially ones of this magnitude.

The eight years between now and 2024/25 is more than enough time to achieve needed CPUC reforms, a resolution to the criminal investigations, and hearings on your rate hike proposal...

I agree with the State Auditor that sunlight is the best disinfectant and am thus cc’ing the reporters and editorial writers who have done yeoman’s work over the years to shine a light on the CPUC, and press the case for reform.

I am also cc’ing Governor Brown and President Picker. It’s not too late for them to do the right thing.

Lindh's claim that we violated ex parte by cc'ing Picker is howlingly ridiculous.

As background, this thing called "ex parte communications" applies to private communications that are hidden from other "intervenors" in Commission business.

What EP did was the exact opposite: we literally cc'd all other intervenors in the proceedings.

By contrast, at the very same moment that Lindh was threatening EP, PG&E announced to all of us that it had just enjoyed a lovely ex parte conversation with Commission President Picker — and that PG&E demanded that its conversation stay confidential. What a game!

Lindh proceeds to cement his role as PG&E's heavy:

Second, in copying non-parties, in particular several media outlets, on a discussion about a meet-and-confer process on procedural scheduling issues, you have violated the rulers [sic] protecting such discussions from disclosure to non-parties.

First, that's quite a Freudian slip.

Second, has Lindh really learned nothing?

Forced to leave the Commission after one of the individuals he was threatening spoke out publicly against it, Lindh is once again back to threatening individuals and demanding secrecy.

Why is secrecy so important? Because the Commission is corrupt to the core, because the anti-nuclear views of its "rulers" are unscientific and plain nutty, and the deal to close down California's single largest source of power couldn't be dirtier.

Which is why it will fail when exposed to repeated doses of sunlight.

Further Reading:

The Emails, in Chronological Order

From: Frank Jablonski <frankj@progressivelaw.com> Subject: Re: A.16-06-008: Diablo Canyon Application - Materials in Advance of All-Party Meeting on October 4th - Responses due by Monday (10/3) at noon Date: September 30, 2016 at 4:35:25 PM CDT To: "Middlekauff, Charles (Law)" <CRMd@pge.com> Dear Mr. Middlekauff, Please add my client, Michael Shellenberger, a PG&E ratepayer, and President of Environmental Progress (EP), which counts many of its advisors and supporters as PG&E customers, to your list for future correspondence with parties (email below). By copy of this email, am asking all other parties to do so as well. Thank you. Mr. Shellenberger will attend, on behalf of EP, the meeting PG&E is hosting next Tuesday on the Joint Proposal case. For PG&E, and everyone involved, please understand that we do not consider that upcoming meeting to be a settlement negotiation under CPUC Rule 12.6. If you do consider PG&E’s meeting to be that– some kind of settlement negotiation cloaked by a CPUC confidentiality rule, please let us know what substantive settlement is under negotiation there and what rule cloaks that meeting with confidentiality limitations. Though I doubt this, if it is the case that the Joint Proposal is up for re-negotiation in a setting involving all parties to the proceeding, I am sure many of them would be happy to have that clarification. I make this clarification request because of recent correspondence from Attorney Lindh, who represents a party aligned with PG&E on the Joint Proposal, Friends Of the Earth (FOE). Mr. Lindh wrote Mr. Shellenberger yesterday to indicate that Mr. Shellenberger’s email correspondence of September 29, 2016 – copied to all the parties on your email list, and styled as a “reply all,” following Ms. Woodruff’s email (with additional persons also copied, which seemed to trigger the concern) – violated CPUC ex-parte rules. “In copying decisional staff in a Commissioner's office at the CPUC,” Mr. Lindh wrote to my client, "you have engaged in an improper ex parte communication about substantive issues in the case.” PG&E’s allied Joint Proposal sponsor also indicated that, by publicly disclosing information about the “meet-and-confer process” Mr. Shellenberger “ violated the rulers [sic].” Mr. Lindh, representing a PG&E ally in this case, did not specify which rules were violated. The tenor of the communication is to the effect that the practice and rules protect the secrecy of pre-hearing meetings of parties and preclude open communications (copied to parties) that involve the case’s substantive issues. I do not see support for this in the CPUC Rules, and it seems backwards. In part, I don’t understand how an open communication simultaneously disclosed to all parties could violate ex-parte limitations. To the contrary, it seems like keeping communications with decision-makers fully transparent would be far superior to undertaking private conversations and then “spinning” them in an associated self-controlled disclosure document of the type I have observed, e.g., in relation to the discredited San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station settlement. Since your ally’s communication is so confusing, and PG&E is generating the meeting, please tell us what substantive issues, if any, are under negotiation there. Also, if the list of email recipients for the related communications does not match the list of parties and associated persons involved in the CPUC case, then please tell us who was left out. Full disclosure: we do not consider anything about the upcoming PG&E meeting, or related CPUC case proceedings involving all parties, to be confidential. EP’s participation is not confidential, and its position is entirely transparent: the CPUC is currently operating without public trust. It has impaired its legitimacy by allowing development of activities that have triggered on-going federal and state criminal investigations. It shouldn’t be entertaining this proposal at this time and under this cloud. It is EP’s hope and intention to push this proceeding, born of a privately negotiated deal that we see as illegitimate, and following on the heels of a similar deal that is now known – after closure of the relevant plant and an increase in climate- and health- damaging emissions – to have been improperly developed. Accordingly, I am copying this, in addition to all parties, to Governor Jerry Brown, CPUC President Michael Picker, and various national and California reporter, editors and bloggers. In the interest of transparency, and because I may have to send this email in two “batches” of recipients, the addresses copied who are not on the list originating with PG&E addresses are: Thank you for your attention and consideration. Frank Jablonski

From: "Middlekauff, Charles (Law)" <CRMd@pge.com>

Subject: A.16-08-006: All Party Meeting in Advance of Pre-Hearing Conference

Date: September 23, 2016 at 5:55:46 PM CDT

To: "ATrowbridge@DayCarterMurphy.com" <ATrowbridge@DayCarterMurphy.com>, "Apak@AlPakLaw.com" <Apak@AlPakLaw.com>, "Austin.yang@sfgov.org" <Austin.yang@sfgov.org>, "BHalter@MeyersNave.com" <BHalter@MeyersNave.com>, "BStevens@sfwater.org" <BStevens@sfwater.org>, "BStrottman@MeyersNave.com" <BStrottman@MeyersNave.com>, "BarmackM@calpine.com" <BarmackM@calpine.com>, "Brad@Calseia.org" <Brad@Calseia.org>, "CDietrick@slocity.org" <CDietrick@slocity.org>, "CPUCdockets@eq-research.com" <CPUCdockets@eq-research.com>, "Middlekauff, Charles (Law)" <CRMd@pge.com>, "DFranz@SolarCity.com" <DFranz@SolarCity.com>, "DJacobson@EnvironmentCalifornia.org" <DJacobson@EnvironmentCalifornia.org>, "DLowrey@Comverge.com" <DLowrey@Comverge.com>, "DMoglen@foe.org" <DMoglen@foe.org>, "ESalustro@SempraUtilities.com" <ESalustro@SempraUtilities.com>, "EmilySangi@dwt.com" <EmilySangi@dwt.com>, "FrankJ@ProgressiveLaw.com" <FrankJ@ProgressiveLaw.com>, "GMorris@emf.net" <GMorris@emf.net>, "Info@dcisc.org" <Info@dcisc.org>, "JAC@CPowerEnergyManagement.com" <JAC@CPowerEnergyManagement.com>, "JBBrown@gate.net" <JBBrown@gate.net>, "Doyle, Conor" <JCDt@pge.com>, "JHCaldwellJr@gmail.com" <JHCaldwellJr@gmail.com>, "JKairam@edf.org" <JKairam@edf.org>, "JMcIntyre@GoodinMacBride.com" <JMcIntyre@GoodinMacBride.com>, "JWaen@mceCleanEnergy.org" <JWaen@mceCleanEnergy.org>, "John.Leslie@Dentons.com" <John.Leslie@Dentons.com>, "John@DicksonGeesman.com" <John@DicksonGeesman.com>, "KaraSlo@Charter.net" <KaraSlo@Charter.net>, "Klatt@EnergyAttorney.com" <Klatt@EnergyAttorney.com>, "LAlper@sfwater.org" <LAlper@sfwater.org>, "LChaset@KeyesAndFox.com" <LChaset@KeyesAndFox.com>, "Tesfai, Leuwam" <leuwam.tesfai@cpuc.ca.gov>, "Liaison@CGNP.org" <Liaison@CGNP.org>, "MDJoseph@AdamsBroadwell.com" <MDJoseph@AdamsBroadwell.com>, "MTierney-Lloyd@enernoc.com" <MTierney-Lloyd@enernoc.com>, "Matt@ohmConnect.com" <Matt@ohmConnect.com>, "MeganMMyers@yahoo.com" <MeganMMyers@yahoo.com>, "NGillette@EnerNOC.com" <NGillette@EnerNOC.com>, "PhilM@SCDenergy.com" <PhilM@SCDenergy.com>, "Policy@EfficiencyCouncil.org" <Policy@EfficiencyCouncil.org>, "RCavanagh@nrdc.org" <RCavanagh@nrdc.org>, "Rachel@LargeScaleSolar.org" <Rachel@LargeScaleSolar.org>, RegRelCPUCCases <RegRelCPUCCases@pge.com>, "Rochelle@A4NR.org" <Rochelle@A4NR.org>, "SMarshall@LeanEnergyUS.org" <SMarshall@LeanEnergyUS.org>, "SMeyers@MeyersNave.com" <SMeyers@MeyersNave.com>, "Ramaiya, Shilpa" <SRRd@pge.com>, "SShupe@SonomaCleanPower.org" <SShupe@SonomaCleanPower.org>, "SSwaroop@mceCleanEnergy.org" <SSwaroop@mceCleanEnergy.org>, "Samuel@Blakeslee-Blakeslee.com" <Samuel@Blakeslee-Blakeslee.com>, "Sherry.Lewis66@att.net" <Sherry.Lewis66@att.net>, "Ty@TosdalLaw.com" <Ty@TosdalLaw.com>, "VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com" <VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com>, "barbara@barkovichandyap.com" <barbara@barkovichandyap.com>, "cbarry@iwpnews.com" <cbarry@iwpnews.com>, "cmkehrein@ems-ca.com" <cmkehrein@ems-ca.com>, "cpuccases@pge.com" <cpuccases@pge.com>, "dcohen@navigant.com" <dcohen@navigant.com>, "diamond@energyhub.net" <diamond@energyhub.net>, "Lee, Diana" <diana.lee@cpuc.ca.gov>, "douglass@energyattorney.com" <douglass@energyattorney.com>, "Greene, Eric" <eric.greene@cpuc.ca.gov>, "esheffer@slcusd.org" <esheffer@slcusd.org>, "frankrichlindh@gmail.com" <frankrichlindh@gmail.com>, "greencowboysdf@gmail.com" <greencowboysdf@gmail.com>, "jhendry@sfwater.org" <jhendry@sfwater.org>, "jlasbury@iid.com" <jlasbury@iid.com>, "jnmwem@gmail.com" <jnmwem@gmail.com>, "jsadams49@sbcglobal.net" <jsadams49@sbcglobal.net>, "klatt@energyattorney.com" <klatt@energyattorney.com>, "liddell@EnergyAttorney.com" <liddell@EnergyAttorney.com>, "liz@CEERT.org" <liz@CEERT.org>, "lkoehler@edf.org" <lkoehler@edf.org>, "marcie.milner@shell.com" <marcie.milner@shell.com>, "matt.vespa@sierraclub.org" <matt.vespa@sierraclub.org>, "matthew@turn.org" <matthew@turn.org>, "mmattes@nossaman.com" <mmattes@nossaman.com>, "mrp@dwgp.com" <mrp@dwgp.com>, "mrw@mrwassoc.com" <mrw@mrwassoc.com>, "nreardon@sonomacleanpower.org" <nreardon@sonomacleanpower.org>, "pmiller@nrdc.org" <pmiller@nrdc.org>, "ralaurie@iid.com" <ralaurie@iid.com>, "regulatory@mceCleanEnergy.org" <regulatory@mceCleanEnergy.org>, "Peterson, Rachel A." <rachel.peterson@cpuc.ca.gov>, "sgriffin@meyersnave.com" <sgriffin@meyersnave.com>, "smn@dwgp.com" <smn@dwgp.com>, "ssmyers@att.net" <ssmyers@att.net>, "sue.mara@RTOAdvisors.com" <sue.mara@RTOAdvisors.com>, "venskus@lawsv.com" <venskus@lawsv.com>, "Manheim, William (Law)" <WVM3@pge.com>

Parties to Application 16-08-006:

Administrative Law Judge Allen has scheduled a pre-hearing conference for this proceeding on October 6, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. As the regulatory process gets under way, PG&E is looking forward to working collaboratively with all of the parties to make this proceeding as efficient as possible. To that end, we wanted to invite all of the parties to a meeting on October 4, 2016 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. with the goal of trying to build as much consensus as possible on the procedural and scoping issues to be addressed at the pre-hearing conference.

We would like to try to reach agreement on a proposed schedule for the proceeding. In addition, we think it would be useful to compile a list of issues that we agree are in scope, those that we agree are out of scope, and contested scoping issues that the Commission will need to address in the Scoping Memo. Our goal would be to provide an agreed upon schedule and the list of scoping issues to Judge Allen either in advance of the pre-hearing conference or at the pre-hearing conference. All of the parties may not be able to agree on everything, but it would definitely help to talk in advance of the pre-hearing workshop and to find as much common ground as possible.

We will be sending out separately to the service list a meeting invite that includes information to attend in-person, as well as call-in information for those who want to attend telephonically. If you plan to attend the meeting in person, please send an e-mail to Charles Middlekauff (crmd@pge.com) and Stephanie Louie (syw1@pge.com) to let us know. This helps to expedite getting through building security to have everyone’s name in advance.

We look forward to your participation and to working together to make this proceeding run as smoothly as possible.

Bill Manheim and Charles Middlekauff

Dear Mr. Manheim and Mr. Middlekauff,

Thank you for your invitation to discuss PG&E’s attempt to expedite your proposal to raise electricity rates in exchange for closing Diablo Canyon. If you truly intend to go forward with the meeting, I will attend with my colleagues.

However, your invitation gives the distinct impression that you are seeking to rush your rate hike/plant closure deal through the CPUC before it can be reformed by the California State Legislature.

As you know, the last time a California utility (along with TURN, FOE and ORA) rushed a secretly negotiated rate hike/plant closure deal through the CPUC, the result was an on-going federal and state investigation of suspected criminal activities.

CPUC President Michael Picker still refuses to release the emails between himself, Governor Jerry Brown and former CPUC President Michael Peevey relating to the San Onofre settlement — even though those emails may contain evidence of criminal activity.

Last August, the climate scientist James Hansen, Whole Earth Catalogue founder Stewart Brand, and over four dozen prominent scientists and environmentalists affiliated with my organization, Environmental Progress, published in an open letter to Governor Brown urging him to direct the legislature, not the CPUC, to decide on this issue.

"Sending this proposal to the CPUC, an institution that is struggling with its own crisis of credibility relating to improper relationships with regulated industries,” they wrote, “would raise further doubts about the legitimacy of the proceedings."

And just last week, the California State Auditor demanded significant reforms by CPUC — reforms that the CPUC immediately and brazenly rejected.

“If [Picker] doesn’t fully comply with [state auditor] recommendations, he should resign,” wrote the San Jose Mercury News yesterday. “If he doesn’t, the Legislature needs to step in, as we’ve suggested before.”

The CPUC’s days as a secretive and rogue agency are numbered. Last year, the legislature passed strong CPUC reforms — including having to make public its emails — that Governor Brown vetoed.

This year, after reform legislators proposed eliminating the CPUC altogether, Gov. Brown negotiated a compromise. But then, at the last minute, Mr. Picker killed the deal in the final hours of the last legislative session, according to reports by the San Diego Union Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

State legislators were angered by the double-cross, and have announced they will push for even tougher reforms, either in the legislature or on the ballot.

Given these rising demands for transparency, it is rather audacious for PG&E to now propose holding a private meeting — in PG&E's corporate offices, no less — to negotiate a settlement schedule two days before the first CPUC meeting.

It is equally audacious to claim the desire to “build as much consensus as possible” when your own Joint Proposal not only forbids you from modifying it but also requires you to “actively and mutually defend the Joint Proposal and associated settlement agreement and the Joint Application if opposed by any other party.”

As such, the meeting you are proposing only reinforces the perception that this CPUC proceeding is merely for show.

I hope you, your CEO and PG&E’s board of directors will consider that there is a better way. PG&E should withdraw its proposal and work with the growing movement for real CPUC reform.

If, after we achieve reform, you still want to raise electricity rates in exchange for eliminating 21 percent of California’s clean power, then CPUC settlement hearings can proceed with legitimacy, free from the dark cloud that stains all CPUC proceedings, especially ones of this magnitude.

The eight years between now and 2024/25 is more than enough time to achieve needed CPUC reforms, a resolution to the criminal investigations, and hearings on your rate hike proposal.

Reform is inevitable. I hope PG&E sees its enlightened self-interest in achieving it. Doing so will help re-build the public trust's in PG&E that it desperately needs and, I believe, genuinely desires.

I agree with the State Auditor that sunlight is the best disinfectant and am thus cc’ing the reporters and editorial writers who have done yeoman’s work over the years to shine a light on the CPUC, and press the case for reform.

I am also cc’ing Governor Brown and President Picker. It’s not too late for them to do the right thing.

Sincerely,

Michael

————

Michael Shellenberger :: President, Environmental Progress :: EnvironmentalProgress.org

Michael -

I don't believe we've met before, but I feel compelled to point out that your message below violates several of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as the rules of fair play.

I am copying Frank Jablonski, your attorney of record, to include him in the conversation.

First, in copying decisional staff in a Commissioner's office at the CPUC, you have engaged in an improper ex parte communication about substantive issues in the case.

Second, in copying non-parties, in particular several media outlets, on a discussion about a meet-and-confer process on procedural scheduling issues, you have violated the rulers protecting such discussions from disclosure to non-parties.

These are serious violations that if left uncorrected will taint the decisional process.

Please let me say you don't do the cause of CPUC "reform" any good when you violate such basic and important rules that exist in order to ensure the integrity of the process.

I hope you and Frank can find a way to correct these missteps, and at least do better going forward.

I look forward to meeting you in person next week in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Frank Lindh

Attorney for Friends of the Earth

Dear Mr. Middlekauff:

We are confused about your email, as it is our understanding that it is up the Administrative Law Judge to determine what is, and what is not, within the proper scope of these proceedings. And we fear that the manner in which you seek to “consolidate” the process may in fact prejudice it.

We will also add that certain issues that PG&E defines as out of scope – particularly those related to the use and disposition of the Diablo Lands – cannot afford to be put off until 2018. For example, as we understand it per public reports, PG&E is already in discussion with developers regarding the potential transfer of its ownership of 2500 acres of these lands (known as Wild Cherry Canyon). If PG&E succeeds in delaying the lands discussion (by claiming it’s “out of scope”) then a conservation outcome for the Diablo Lands could be forever precluded.

Finally, the land issues are clearly in scope. There are several reasons for this, and we look forward to discussing these at the October 6th hearing.

Best wishes, Kara

Kara A. Woodruff

Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon

karaslo@charter.net

From: "Middlekauff, Charles (Law)" <CRMd@pge.com>

Date: Sep 29, 2016 7:11 PM

Subject: RE: A.16-06-008: Diablo Canyon Application - Materials in Advance of All-Party Meeting on October 4th - Responses due by Monday (10/3) at noon

To: "Kara Woodruff" <karaslo@charter.net>

Cc: "ATrowbridge@DayCarterMurphy.com" <ATrowbridge@daycartermurphy.com>, "Apak@AlPakLaw.com" <Apak@alpaklaw.com>, "Austin.yang@sfgov.org" <Austin.yang@sfgov.org>, "BHalter@MeyersNave.com" <BHalter@meyersnave.com>, "BStevens@sfwater.org" <BStevens@sfwater.org>, "BStrottman@MeyersNave.com" <BStrottman@meyersnave.com>, "BarmackM@calpine.com" <BarmackM@calpine.com>, "Brad@Calseia.org" <Brad@calseia.org>, "CDietrick@slocity.org" <CDietrick@slocity.org>, "CPUCdockets@eq-research.com" <CPUCdockets@eq-research.com>, "DFranz@SolarCity.com" <DFranz@solarcity.com>, "DJacobson@EnvironmentCalifornia.org" <DJacobson@environmentcalifornia.org>, "DLowrey@Comverge.com" <DLowrey@comverge.com>, "DMoglen@foe.org" <DMoglen@foe.org>, "ESalustro@SempraUtilities.com" <ESalustro@semprautilities.com>, "EmilySangi@dwt.com" <EmilySangi@dwt.com>, "FrankJ@ProgressiveLaw.com" <FrankJ@progressivelaw.com>, "GMorris@emf.net" <GMorris@emf.net>, "Info@dcisc.org" <Info@dcisc.org>, "JAC@CPowerEnergyManagement.com" <JAC@cpowerenergymanagement.com>, "JBBrown@gate.net" <JBBrown@gate.net>, "Doyle, Conor" <JCDt@pge.com>, "JHCaldwellJr@gmail.com" <JHCaldwellJr@gmail.com>, "JKairam@edf.org" <JKairam@edf.org>, "JMcIntyre@GoodinMacBride.com" <JMcIntyre@goodinmacbride.com>, "JWaen@mceCleanEnergy.org" <JWaen@mcecleanenergy.org>, "John.Leslie@Dentons.com" <John.Leslie@dentons.com>, "John@DicksonGeesman.com" <John@dicksongeesman.com>, "Klatt@EnergyAttorney.com" <Klatt@energyattorney.com>, "LAlper@sfwater.org" <LAlper@sfwater.org>, "LChaset@KeyesAndFox.com" <LChaset@keyesandfox.com>, "Tesfai, Leuwam" <leuwam.tesfai@cpuc.ca.gov>, "Liaison@CGNP.org" <Liaison@cgnp.org>, "MDJoseph@AdamsBroadwell.com" <MDJoseph@adamsbroadwell.com>, "MTierney-Lloyd@enernoc.com" <MTierney-Lloyd@enernoc.com>, "Matt@ohmConnect.com" <Matt@ohmconnect.com>, "MeganMMyers@yahoo.com" <MeganMMyers@yahoo.com>, "NGillette@EnerNOC.com" <NGillette@enernoc.com>, "PhilM@SCDenergy.com" <PhilM@scdenergy.com>, "Policy@EfficiencyCouncil.org" <Policy@efficiencycouncil.org>, "RCavanagh@nrdc.org" <RCavanagh@nrdc.org>, "Rachel@LargeScaleSolar.org" <Rachel@largescalesolar.org>, "RegRelCPUCCases" <RegRelCPUCCases@pge.com>, "Rochelle@A4NR.org" <Rochelle@a4nr.org>, "SMarshall@LeanEnergyUS.org" <SMarshall@leanenergyus.org>, "SMeyers@MeyersNave.com" <SMeyers@meyersnave.com>, "Ramaiya, Shilpa" <SRRd@pge.com>, "SShupe@SonomaCleanPower.org" <SShupe@sonomacleanpower.org>, "SSwaroop@mceCleanEnergy.org" <SSwaroop@mcecleanenergy.org>, "Samuel@Blakeslee-Blakeslee.com" <Samuel@blakeslee-blakeslee.com>, "Sherry.Lewis66@att.net" <Sherry.Lewis66@att.net>, "Ty@TosdalLaw.com" <Ty@tosdallaw.com>, "VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com" <VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com>, "barbara@barkovichandyap.com" <barbara@barkovichandyap.com>, "cbarry@iwpnews.com" <cbarry@iwpnews.com>, "cmkehrein@ems-ca.com" <cmkehrein@ems-ca.com>, "cpuccases@pge.com" <cpuccases@pge.com>, "dcohen@navigant.com" <dcohen@navigant.com>, "diamond@energyhub.net" <diamond@energyhub.net>, "Lee, Diana" <diana.lee@cpuc.ca.gov>, "douglass@energyattorney.com" <douglass@energyattorney.com>, "Greene, Eric" <eric.greene@cpuc.ca.gov>, "esheffer@slcusd.org" <esheffer@slcusd.org>, "frankrichlindh@gmail.com" <frankrichlindh@gmail.com>, "greencowboysdf@gmail.com" <greencowboysdf@gmail.com>, "jhendry@sfwater.org" <jhendry@sfwater.org>, "jlasbury@iid.com" <jlasbury@iid.com>, "jnmwem@gmail.com" <jnmwem@gmail.com>, "jsadams49@sbcglobal.net" <jsadams49@sbcglobal.net>, "liddell@EnergyAttorney.com" <liddell@energyattorney.com>, "liz@CEERT.org" <liz@ceert.org>, "lkoehler@edf.org" <lkoehler@edf.org>, "marcie.milner@shell.com" <marcie.milner@shell.com>, "matt.vespa@sierraclub.org" <matt.vespa@sierraclub.org>, "matthew@turn.org" <matthew@turn.org>, "mmattes@nossaman.com" <mmattes@nossaman.com>, "mrp@dwgp.com" <mrp@dwgp.com>, "mrw@mrwassoc.com" <mrw@mrwassoc.com>, "nreardon@sonomacleanpower.org" <nreardon@sonomacleanpower.org>, "pmiller@nrdc.org" <pmiller@nrdc.org>, "ralaurie@iid.com" <ralaurie@iid.com>, "regulatory@mceCleanEnergy.org" <regulatory@mcecleanenergy.org>, "Peterson, Rachel A." <rachel.peterson@cpuc.ca.gov>, "sgriffin@meyersnave.com" <sgriffin@meyersnave.com>, "smn@dwgp.com" <smn@dwgp.com>, "ssmyers@att.net" <ssmyers@att.net>, "sue.mara@RTOAdvisors.com" <sue.mara@rtoadvisors.com>, "venskus@lawsv.com" <venskus@lawsv.com>, "Manheim, William (Law)" <WVM3@pge.com>, "BCragg (BCragg@goodinmacbride.com)" <BCragg@goodinmacbride.com>

Parties:

Kara Woodruff gave us some great feedback in a conversation following up on her e-mail below regarding the October 4th all-party meeting and the materials attached to my earlier e-mail. I wanted to apologize to all of you because, after talking with her, I realized that the document attached to my earlier e-mail was very unclear. We did not intend in the document to pre-determine the issues that would be in scope and out of scope, or to limit the issues that will be discussed at the October 6th pre-hearing conference, or for any party to waive its rights to assert that certain issues should be in scope or out of scope. However, after talking with Kara, I can see how the document that we circulated earlier was unclear and could be misunderstood.

I am attaching to this e-mail a revised version of that document that will hopefully be clearer. The purpose of this document, and the all-party meeting on October 4th is simply to develop a single consolidated list of issues that parties assert are in scope, issues that parties asserts are out of scope, and those issues that are contested as to whether they are in scope or out of scope. For some issues, all parties may agree that the issue is in scope or out of scope. Other issues may be contested. We are not intending for anyone to waive their rights or arguments about what issues are in scope and what issues are out of scope, but instead are simply trying to get a single list of issues that we can present at the pre-hearing conference so that they can be discussed in an orderly and organized fashion. We are attempting to do the same with the schedule.

We have re-organized the document so that parties can list issues they believe are in scope, issues they think are out of scope, and contested issues. I left lots of blanks for people to fill in, but I also populated the document with the issues that PG&E thinks are in scope, out of scope, and contested to make clearer what we are looking for. In addition, I heard from CalSEIA already as to issues they think are out of scope, and from Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon as to issues that they think are in scope, and I have included these as further examples of how we were hoping the document would be filled out and used. I hope this is helpful.

I would ask that people fill this out for their respective parties and send it to me and Conor Doyle by noon on Monday (10/3). We will then consolidate into a single document that we can review at the all-party meeting on Tuesday, October 4 and hopefully finalize before the pre-hearing conference. To the extent parties have similar issues but different wording, one goal on October 4th would be to develop common wording so that we don’t have an issues list that is long because the same issue is repeated in a number of variations.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me personally. Thank you again to Kara for her very helpful feedback on the earlier document. We look forward to getting your responses and to a productive and collaborative meeting on October 4th.

Charles Middlekauff

PG&E

(415) 973-6971