Rulemaking in CPUC General Order 170: Comments, Replies pushed back 45 days

Just issued about 15 minutes ago (9:14 a.m. PDT)

To the Parties of Record in Rulemaking (R.) 06-10-006:

On May 16, 2013, the City and County of San Francisco on behalf of the League of California Cities, the California Association of Counties, and SCAN NOTOA (Joint Parties) requested a 90-day extension to file comments on the May 2, 2013 Joint Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Ruling.  The Ruling requested parties to comment on five questions regarding the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act for telecommunications providers.  The Joint Parties explain that such additional time is necessary to perform the depth of careful analysis needed to adequately and meaningfully respond to the five questions.

It is reasonable to provide an extension of time to file comments, given the amount of time that has elapsed between the order for rehearing and this Ruling.  However, we find that a 90-day extension is not warranted given that there are only five questions and one of the questions asks to provide the party’s position.  With this in mind, I grant a 45-day extension for comments.

The deadline for opening comments to the May 2, 2013 Ruling is July 15, 2013.  Reply comments are due August 1, 2013.

Thank you.

Kelly A. Hymes
Administrative Law Judge
California Public Utilities Commission

The additional time should be put to good use to gather facts and respond to the Commission’s questions regarding CEQA analysis of telecom facilities that are regulated by the CPUC.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.