WEBVTT 00:00:00.030 --> 00:00:09.030 As to whether the minute hand's straight up or not. So this is the time and place 00:00:09.030 --> 00:00:14.490 for evidentiary hearings in Investigation 1909016. 00:00:14.490 --> 00:00:21.449 I'm Administrative Law Judge Peter Allen. With me on the bench today is Annalisa 00:00:21.449 --> 00:00:25.619 Herbert who will be helping me with administrative and organizational things, 00:00:25.619 --> 00:00:32.870 such as marking exhibits. Commission President Batjer is the assigned 00:00:32.870 --> 00:00:40.230 Commissioner. She may be joining us later today. These hearings are webcast so 00:00:40.230 --> 00:00:45.329 please try to use a microphone when you speak. Otherwise, people on the webcast 00:00:45.329 --> 00:00:49.469 will not be able to hear you. They may be able to see you but not hear 00:00:49.469 --> 00:00:58.160 you. The order of things that I'm looking at doing today is start up by discussing 00:00:58.160 --> 00:01:04.379 schedule for the issues raised in the assigned Commissioner's ruling. Then, we'll 00:01:04.379 --> 00:01:10.729 go to marking of exhibits and other housekeeping issues. witness schedule, 00:01:10.729 --> 00:01:21.509 cross-examination estimates, any new appearances. Parties should know just for 00:01:21.509 --> 00:01:27.090 scheduling, I'm thinking if we go to March 3rd, I'm thinking of starting a 00:01:27.090 --> 00:01:30.509 little bit late that day since it's Election Day to give people a chance to 00:01:30.509 --> 00:01:39.900 vote in the morning. With that, let me also just indicate the testimony that 00:01:39.900 --> 00:01:44.030 I've seen to make sure that what I have matches what people think they've served. 00:01:44.030 --> 00:01:53.700 I have seen testimony served by NRDC, the joint CCA's, Q, City and County of San 00:01:53.700 --> 00:01:58.920 Francisco, TURN, TURN, along with EPOC and Indicated 00:01:58.920 --> 00:02:02.899 Shippers, Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, 00:02:02.899 --> 00:02:11.400 Mr. Abrams, PG&E, CLECA, and the Small Business Utility Advocates. Is there 00:02:11.400 --> 00:02:14.880 anyone else who thought they served testimony? 00:02:14.880 --> 00:02:22.300 Okay, seeing none, that's good. Let's go ahead and start with the schedule for 00:02:22.300 --> 00:02:28.349 the issues in the assigned Commissioners ruling. The assigned Commissioner's ruling 00:02:28.349 --> 00:02:33.849 laid out a tentative schedule, we're not wedded to that, that schedule 00:02:33.849 --> 00:02:39.269 assumes that evidentiary hearings are necessary and so it has testimony, 00:02:39.269 --> 00:02:49.480 evidentiary hearings, and then one round of briefing, so one of the initial 00:02:49.480 --> 00:02:53.830 questions is do parties think we actually need evidentiary hearings or is 00:02:53.830 --> 00:02:58.060 this something that could be just addressed in briefs or comments on paper 00:02:58.060 --> 00:03:03.099 rather than having evidentiary hearings? And then, thoughts on the schedule, so 00:03:03.099 --> 00:03:11.099 let's start, let's start with Mr. Long, then Ms. Sheriff and then Mr. Weisman. 00:03:11.670 --> 00:03:19.060 Good morning, Your Honor, Tom Long for TERN. We did some extensive thinking 00:03:19.060 --> 00:03:22.930 about the assigned Commissioner's ruling and the schedule that made sense, 00:03:22.930 --> 00:03:29.200 and came up with two alternatives for their Commission's consideration. Problem 00:03:29.200 --> 00:03:33.489 we were seeing with the schedule that was falling out as proposed in the 00:03:33.489 --> 00:03:40.090 assigned Commissioner ruling was that it was leaving the non-financial issues, 00:03:40.090 --> 00:03:46.269 that is those that were being addressed, testimony, prior to the assigned 00:03:46.269 --> 00:03:50.620 Commissioner ruling, and the issues raised by the assigned 00:03:50.620 --> 00:03:53.889 Commissioner ruling, it was leaving those on two separate tracks, at least, for the 00:03:53.889 --> 00:04:02.200 first go-round of testimony and briefing, and it seemed to us that that was highly 00:04:02.200 --> 00:04:05.260 inefficient in a schedule that needs to be as efficient as possible. 00:04:05.260 --> 00:04:13.840 It struck us as important to really try to merge those two aspects of the same 00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:19.450 set of issues, the same set of issues in the non-financial issues prior 00:04:19.450 --> 00:04:27.250 to the ACR and the ACR and the issues raised by the ACR, so we suggest, and we 00:04:27.250 --> 00:04:29.560 prefer alternative number one, but we wanted to give you 00:04:29.560 --> 00:04:36.340 another option for your consideration if you wanted, and alternative number one is 00:04:36.340 --> 00:04:40.480 an option that does not have evidentiary hearings, testimony or evidentiary 00:04:40.480 --> 00:04:50.980 hearings, on the ACR proposals, and instead, we would have just a round of 00:04:50.980 --> 00:04:55.930 briefs on the financial and non-financial issues on March 13th as 00:04:55.930 --> 00:05:01.690 scheduled, joined with an opportunity for parties to file opening comments on the 00:05:01.690 --> 00:05:10.450 ACR issues on that same date, and then, on the 26th, which was the date that was set 00:05:10.450 --> 00:05:15.940 for the close of the briefing in the assigned Commissioner ruling, there 00:05:15.940 --> 00:05:19.000 would be reply briefs on the financial and non-financial issues and reply 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:26.340 comments on the assigned Commissioner issues. Believe this is the most efficient way 00:05:26.340 --> 00:05:32.620 to organize these proceedings. I had to think hard about the the notion of 00:05:32.620 --> 00:05:38.050 giving up evidentiary hearings which I always view as valuable, however, we 00:05:38.050 --> 00:05:44.200 didn't think that the benefit gained from the additional work that would be 00:05:44.200 --> 00:05:47.950 required on the part of the parties and the Commission under an evidentiary 00:05:47.950 --> 00:05:56.620 hearing format would have frankly worth the benefit. That said, there is an 00:05:56.620 --> 00:06:00.450 alternative number two that we show on this. Again, it's not our preferred 00:06:00.450 --> 00:06:08.140 alternative, but it would it would urge the ACR and non-financial issues into 00:06:08.140 --> 00:06:13.930 one track and retain evidentiary hearings, so we would have testimony on the ACR 00:06:13.930 --> 00:06:20.580 issues on the 6th of March, evidentiary hearings a few days later, on the 00:06:20.580 --> 00:06:26.830 assigned Commissioner ruling issues on the 10th and 11th, then, as currently 00:06:26.830 --> 00:06:31.390 scheduled, opening briefs would be limited, would be filed on 00:06:31.390 --> 00:06:36.460 March 13th but limited to the financial issues, and then, opening briefs on the 00:06:36.460 --> 00:06:40.550 non-financial and the assigned Commissioner ruling issues on the 19th, 00:06:40.550 --> 00:06:45.470 and (mic cuts) briefs on all issues on the 26th. We think the additional steps that this 00:06:45.470 --> 00:06:54.440 adds in terms of filing testimony on the ACR issues and, you know, adding 00:06:54.440 --> 00:06:59.780 that step testimony and evidentiary hearings and doesn't (mic cuts out) a lot of extra time 00:06:59.780 --> 00:07:03.020 and resources for the Commission and parties, and we don't think it 00:07:03.020 --> 00:07:05.690 produces that much gain in the benefit of the clarity of the record or the 00:07:05.690 --> 00:07:10.340 development of the record. I'll just say one last thing about alternative number 00:07:10.340 --> 00:07:15.500 one. The idea would be that when parties are submitting briefs on the evidentiary 00:07:15.500 --> 00:07:23.270 record on the non financial issues and comments on the ACR issues, the idea 00:07:23.270 --> 00:07:26.420 would be that this would be an opportunity to make those consistent, 00:07:26.420 --> 00:07:32.360 that parties would be referring to those two separate sets of, maybe separate 00:07:32.360 --> 00:07:34.400 documents, depending upon how the Commission wanted to do it, but they 00:07:34.400 --> 00:07:38.060 would try to make them internally consistent so the Commission have from 00:07:38.060 --> 00:07:43.030 the parties a coherent presentation of what they want the Commission to do. 00:07:43.030 --> 00:07:48.620 Which we think is important and not something that's happening under the 00:07:48.620 --> 00:07:49.871 current schedule. 00:07:49.896 --> 00:07:52.520 Thank you, just, yeah, just as a minor 00:07:52.520 --> 00:07:57.650 clarification, would you be looking at it, the parties would do one document 00:07:57.650 --> 00:08:01.460 containing those two things on each date or two separate documents on each date? 00:08:01.460 --> 00:08:07.340 I'm not sure it matters but I do think there's an evidentiary record, 00:08:07.340 --> 00:08:12.650 and there's, and parties would be, on briefs side, would be 00:08:12.650 --> 00:08:16.010 briefing the evidentiary record that we're developing through this piece 00:08:16.010 --> 00:08:20.750 testimony hearings. Since there would not be an evidentiary record on the 00:08:20.750 --> 00:08:26.600 Commission's proposal, on the ACR proposal, it lends itself to comments, and 00:08:26.600 --> 00:08:31.550 perhaps a separate document might be the best way to draw a boundary between 00:08:31.550 --> 00:08:35.000 those, but as I say, the two documents should be speaking to each 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:38.360 other so that there's a coherent proposal, but we don't have a strong view 00:08:38.360 --> 00:08:42.050 as to whether that could be, it that should be two documents or one. 00:08:42.050 --> 00:08:44.816 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Long. Miss Sheriff. 00:08:44.841 --> 00:08:49.352 Thank you, Your Honor. Nora Sheriff for the California Large 00:08:49.377 --> 00:08:53.570 Energy Consumers Association, or CLECA. I respectfully have a different 00:08:53.594 --> 00:08:55.956 position than my colleague, Mr. 00:08:55.981 --> 00:08:59.359 Long, for TERN. CLECA is focused in the, in 00:08:59.384 --> 00:09:02.737 President Batjer's proposal on the regional 00:09:02.763 --> 00:09:07.093 restructuring issues and had planned to put in 00:09:07.118 --> 00:09:11.699 testimony on that. We think that is going to be a 00:09:11.723 --> 00:09:16.179 significant and critically important effort to be undertaken 00:09:16.204 --> 00:09:20.708 by PG&E for the long-term. We think it needs to be done right 00:09:20.732 --> 00:09:25.161 and there needs to be a lot of thought and analysis 00:09:25.186 --> 00:09:29.590 and, you know, likely questions of fact surrounding 00:09:29.614 --> 00:09:33.605 that proposal. Recognizing that we wouldn't be litigating the actual proposal 00:09:33.631 --> 00:09:38.362 here but the process for the proposal, I think, is important 00:09:38.387 --> 00:09:43.073 given the amount of work that needs to go into 00:09:43.098 --> 00:09:47.360 a successful regional reorganization plan. 00:09:47.384 --> 00:09:51.548 Accordingly, CLECA cannot support TURNs 00:09:51.573 --> 00:09:56.246 Alternative Number One because we do think 00:09:56.272 --> 00:10:00.422 we would like to put in testimony on that 00:10:00.447 --> 00:10:04.868 regional restructuring plan and its process. 00:10:04.893 --> 00:10:09.425 Therefore, we support Alternative Number Two, 00:10:09.450 --> 00:10:13.859 recognizing that the dates are slightly more 00:10:13.883 --> 00:10:18.555 accelerated than the dates included 00:10:18.580 --> 00:10:22.960 in President Batjer's proposal. 00:10:22.985 --> 00:10:27.490 We do not have a strong opinion on which set of dates are 00:10:27.515 --> 00:10:31.840 preferable, either TURNs accelerated dates or the dates 00:10:31.865 --> 00:10:36.278 in President Batjer's proposal, and this is, you know, just 00:10:36.290 --> 00:10:40.567 having received this information this morning, so I don't 00:10:40.579 --> 00:10:45.145 have the benefit of conferring with my subject matter experts 00:10:45.157 --> 00:10:49.440 on this, but I can say that I have spoken with my subject 00:10:49.452 --> 00:10:53.868 matter experts on the regional restructuring, and I want to 00:10:53.880 --> 00:10:58.529 emphasize the importance that CLECA places on that in terms of 00:10:58.541 --> 00:11:02.593 the possible long-term success for the utility and its 00:11:02.605 --> 00:11:07.408 emergence, successful emergence, from the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. 00:11:07.433 --> 00:11:12.586 Just come one question Ms. Sheriff. Given your statement 00:11:12.598 --> 00:11:17.015 that, on the regional restructuring, we'd most likely be looking 00:11:17.027 --> 00:11:21.915 at the process for setting that up rather than the substance of exactly 00:11:21.927 --> 00:11:26.350 what it would be, it's not clear to me what factual issues would 00:11:26.362 --> 00:11:30.754 be presented that would need testimony in that. Certainly, I can 00:11:30.766 --> 00:11:35.848 understand if we're looking at the actual structure of it that might raise 00:11:35.860 --> 00:11:40.597 factual issues, but in terms of developing a process for implementing 00:11:40.609 --> 00:11:45.290 it, can you explain more what factual issues would require hearings? 00:11:45.315 --> 00:11:51.745 Yes, how much time will it take for PG&E to develop its regional 00:11:51.757 --> 00:11:57.721 reorganization plan? Is that something that it can do well between now and 00:11:57.733 --> 00:12:03.692 June which is the date that President Batjer put in her proposal for their 00:12:03.704 --> 00:12:09.913 application. CLECA had suggested that the proper place for that full regional 00:12:09.925 --> 00:12:16.199 restructuring plan was folded into the company's next general rate case filing 00:12:16.211 --> 00:12:22.497 which I believe is in the Summer of 2021. We think it would take a significant 00:12:22.509 --> 00:12:28.709 amount of time to actually look at the different organizations, the different 00:12:28.721 --> 00:12:35.172 functional operational lines, and figure out what needs to be restructured to be 00:12:35.184 --> 00:12:41.923 regional? Where should we continue to keep it, you know, keep the focus centralized? 00:12:41.935 --> 00:12:48.051 That is the sort of issue that I'm talking about. That timeline is something 00:12:48.063 --> 00:12:54.093 that CLECA is concerned about in President Batjer's proposal. We don't want 00:12:54.105 --> 00:13:00.226 PG&E to be unduly rushed in terms of preparing a regional restructuring plan 00:13:00.238 --> 00:13:06.504 because we think it's critically important and it needs to be done well and it 00:13:06.516 --> 00:13:12.714 needs to be thought out, and we think that there needs to be real analysis of 00:13:12.726 --> 00:13:19.156 how the company's structured now, what it knows now, about its 28,000 employees, 00:13:19.168 --> 00:13:25.372 who's gonna stay where, etcetera. That needs to go into that. Into that plan. 00:13:25.397 --> 00:13:28.763 Thank you. Mr. Weisman? 00:13:28.788 --> 00:13:33.185 Thank you and good morning, Your Honor. We 00:13:33.197 --> 00:13:37.909 support the proposed schedule that sets forth in the ACR, and 00:13:37.921 --> 00:13:42.476 we can talk about the exact dates within the window that is 00:13:42.488 --> 00:13:47.131 provided. We'd prefer for the testimony to be due toward the 00:13:47.143 --> 00:13:51.771 end of that window of time, and we do believe, we agree with 00:13:51.783 --> 00:13:56.194 CLECA, that evidentiary hearings should be conducted, and 00:13:56.206 --> 00:14:00.916 if I may just spend a moment on why we think that's the case, 00:14:00.928 --> 00:14:05.269 so of the ten proposals that are set forth in the ACR, a 00:14:05.281 --> 00:14:09.527 number of them raised factual issues. To give you a few 00:14:09.539 --> 00:14:14.406 examples, there are some provisions or proposals with regard to 00:14:14.418 --> 00:14:18.898 earnings adjustment mechanism, enhanced enforcement, board 00:14:18.910 --> 00:14:24.087 provisions that have potential implication, financial implications, 00:14:24.099 --> 00:14:28.881 implications, implications about the impact of these proposals 00:14:28.893 --> 00:14:33.306 and how they're crafted on the company's ability to raise 00:14:33.318 --> 00:14:37.649 capital, the company's ability, in the case of executive 00:14:37.661 --> 00:14:42.232 compensation, to recruit and retain qualified employees. In 00:14:42.244 --> 00:14:46.637 fact, I think one of the, some of the language in the ACR 00:14:46.649 --> 00:14:51.433 proposal recognizes that particular issue, with respect to the 00:14:51.445 --> 00:14:56.148 impact of some of the proposals on the ability to recruit and 00:14:56.160 --> 00:15:00.495 retain qualified employees. There are a number of issues 00:15:00.507 --> 00:15:05.359 relative to board governance where I think the Commission would 00:15:05.371 --> 00:15:09.930 benefit from testimony that would explain the impact of the 00:15:09.942 --> 00:15:14.953 proposals on the company's ability to govern itself in compliance 00:15:14.965 --> 00:15:19.150 with stock exchange rules and guidance from investment 00:15:19.162 --> 00:15:24.088 advisory firMs. There are a number of other things that we would 00:15:24.100 --> 00:15:28.735 like to comment on. Some of which could be done in comments. 00:15:28.747 --> 00:15:32.767 Because they are, I would characterize it as wording 00:15:32.779 --> 00:15:37.571 suggestions, but sometimes those wording suggestions lead into 00:15:37.583 --> 00:15:42.208 questions about the implications of the wording, and I think 00:15:42.220 --> 00:15:46.705 the Commission would benefit from the ability to hear from 00:15:46.717 --> 00:15:51.197 witnesses and engage in a dialogue with them about changes 00:15:51.209 --> 00:15:55.928 that we might propose. So we do support evidentiary hearings. 00:15:55.953 --> 00:16:01.093 Thank you, Mr. Weisman. Other parties? 00:16:04.118 --> 00:16:08.239 Thank you, Your Honor. Beth Kelly for 00:16:08.251 --> 00:16:12.383 Marin Clean Energy. I'll just add in another fourth 00:16:12.395 --> 00:16:16.522 option. I'm sorry. You know, I know that time is of 00:16:16.534 --> 00:16:20.513 the essence of all of these decisions, and at the 00:16:20.525 --> 00:16:28.478 same time, I see, I see value in the CPUC standard process of having comments setting the scope for 00:16:28.490 --> 00:16:32.938 testimony, briefing, and decision, and it does not seem 00:16:32.950 --> 00:16:37.251 that that is possible in this space, but I think that 00:16:37.263 --> 00:16:41.296 there are matters of policy that it's worth, worth 00:16:41.308 --> 00:16:45.511 submitting just on a policy basis, and so, you know, 00:16:45.523 --> 00:16:49.641 potentially, some, maybe, some parties could submit 00:16:49.653 --> 00:16:53.386 testimony, and other parties could submit more 00:16:53.398 --> 00:16:57.195 policy comments. I'm not sure exactly how to do 00:16:57.207 --> 00:17:01.334 that. But there are matters of policy that are just 00:17:01.346 --> 00:17:05.308 valuable to discuss on that level rather than the 00:17:05.320 --> 00:17:09.930 granular detail of the overall of testimony, for example. 00:17:09.930 --> 00:17:12.913 Thank you. Mr. Bloom, then Mr. Long. 00:17:14.738 --> 00:17:17.912 Thank you, Your Honor. Jerry Bloom on 00:17:17.924 --> 00:17:20.929 behalf of the Tort Claimants Committee. The issue 00:17:20.941 --> 00:17:24.241 that Mr. Long has brought up. We had the same thinking 00:17:24.253 --> 00:17:27.325 when we looked at this, many of these are actually 00:17:27.337 --> 00:17:30.454 just proposals as if they were a party was bringing 00:17:30.466 --> 00:17:33.715 out proposals. And as Mr. Weisman just said, a number 00:17:33.727 --> 00:17:36.970 of these go to governance operations, executive comp, 00:17:36.982 --> 00:17:40.177 ratemaking issues, so I fear that just simply having 00:17:40.189 --> 00:17:43.244 a chance for comments, it's going to be difficult, 00:17:43.256 --> 00:17:46.443 and I think part of the dilemma here is how do these 00:17:46.455 --> 00:17:49.878 proposals get treated? Because they parallel many points 00:17:49.890 --> 00:17:53.144 of the testimony that are in other parties or comment 00:17:53.156 --> 00:17:56.334 or impact. And then, there are a lot of questions is 00:17:56.346 --> 00:17:59.536 given this ruling, would your testimony change based 00:17:59.548 --> 00:18:02.673 upon now what's in the ruling? So they do all merge 00:18:02.685 --> 00:18:05.580 and they are substantive. I don't think you can 00:18:05.592 --> 00:18:08.642 just put in a set of comments, there's things that 00:18:08.654 --> 00:18:11.897 need to be explored or talked about, but we do have a 00:18:11.909 --> 00:18:15.146 problem here in that it's not something where this is 00:18:15.158 --> 00:18:18.407 just a proposed rule decision of the Commission which 00:18:18.419 --> 00:18:21.473 parties are just commenting on. So we would concur 00:18:21.485 --> 00:18:24.731 that there needs to be some type of process here, and 00:18:24.743 --> 00:18:27.923 frankly, we haven't had a chance to talk about which 00:18:27.935 --> 00:18:31.067 of those, which of the three or four options now on 00:18:31.079 --> 00:18:34.311 the table we would prefer, but we do concur there's a 00:18:34.323 --> 00:18:37.748 real issue here. These are substantive things, executive 00:18:37.760 --> 00:18:40.638 comp, makeup of the board, these things are all 00:18:40.650 --> 00:18:43.840 riddled through the testimony of the various parties 00:18:43.852 --> 00:18:47.208 that are in the proceedings, so we do need some process 00:18:47.220 --> 00:18:50.106 in which we can look at them and cross-examiner 00:18:50.118 --> 00:18:53.481 talk about how they are and how they impact, what we're 00:18:53.493 --> 00:18:56.445 going to be doing, even this week and next week. 00:18:56.470 --> 00:18:59.253 Mr. Long then Ms. Kelley. 00:18:59.278 --> 00:19:03.038 Thank you, Your Honor. Just in response to 00:19:03.050 --> 00:19:06.823 PG&E. The problem we see with the current ACR schedule 00:19:06.835 --> 00:19:10.463 is that parties will be filing opening briefs on the 00:19:10.475 --> 00:19:14.116 non-financial issues on March 13th on an evidentiary 00:19:14.128 --> 00:19:17.960 record that nothing do with the ACR proposals, but will 00:19:17.972 --> 00:19:21.679 be acting as if the ACR proposals are not part of the 00:19:21.691 --> 00:19:25.598 record and filing briefs, not even mentioning those, and 00:19:25.610 --> 00:19:29.254 therefore, will not have a pleading that's adressing 00:19:29.266 --> 00:19:33.027 the elephant in the room which is the ACR proposal. It 00:19:33.039 --> 00:19:36.676 doesn't make sense to do that. It feels like a waste 00:19:36.688 --> 00:19:40.387 of time, a waste of effort, and I just don't think we 00:19:40.399 --> 00:19:44.110 can afford wastes of effort at this point. We need to 00:19:44.122 --> 00:19:47.818 be efficient, and that's not efficient, that seems to 00:19:47.830 --> 00:19:51.607 be the height of inefficiency. The other thing is, now 00:19:51.619 --> 00:19:55.596 I certainly understand the concerns of my fellow consumer 00:19:55.608 --> 00:19:58.978 advocates with respect to not having evidentiary 00:19:58.990 --> 00:20:02.884 hearings, and I'm not going to strenuously argue against 00:20:02.896 --> 00:20:06.597 their position. I will just point out that what we're 00:20:06.609 --> 00:20:10.577 dealing with in the ACR is a Commission proposal. If this 00:20:10.589 --> 00:20:14.295 were PG&E's proposal, I would have lots of discovery, 00:20:14.307 --> 00:20:17.930 I would insist upon evidentiary hearings because I'd 00:20:17.942 --> 00:20:21.576 want to understand how it would work. Unfortunately, 00:20:21.588 --> 00:20:25.354 when it's a Commission proposal, there's nobody to ask 00:20:25.366 --> 00:20:29.006 questions to. I can't do discovery on the Commission 00:20:29.018 --> 00:20:32.502 staff or on Commissioner Batjer about what she was 00:20:32.514 --> 00:20:36.421 thinking or what she has in mind. It's for us to respond 00:20:36.433 --> 00:20:39.992 to the proposal and give her our best advice on how 00:20:40.004 --> 00:20:43.711 to implement the proposal the right way, or maybe not 00:20:43.723 --> 00:20:47.553 implement the proposals at all. And so that's very much 00:20:47.565 --> 00:20:51.476 we're being given an opportunity to speak to a proposal, 00:20:51.488 --> 00:20:55.186 but it's not really the kind of situation that I feel 00:20:55.198 --> 00:20:58.909 lends itself to to discovery and evidentiary hearing. 00:20:58.934 --> 00:21:00.060 Thank you, Mr. Long. 00:21:00.060 --> 00:21:05.267 Let's do Miss Kelly, Mr. Abrams, Mr. Weisman. 00:21:07.192 --> 00:21:12.608 Just one thought on the matter of process and efficiency. 00:21:12.620 --> 00:21:17.293 It seems to me that there, and this doesn't go to exactly the 00:21:17.305 --> 00:21:22.954 timing or the substance of what goes into them, but just, my understanding 00:21:22.966 --> 00:21:27.570 is that this would get wrapped into the final decision that, 00:21:27.582 --> 00:21:32.473 in this proceeding, or the proposed decision in this proceeding. 00:21:32.485 --> 00:21:37.387 I think that it would, I think that all of us, as parties, would 00:21:37.399 --> 00:21:42.447 benefit from, you know, a, let's call it a common briefing outline 00:21:42.459 --> 00:21:47.519 or some common outline of the issues that are scoped for comments. 00:21:47.531 --> 00:21:52.486 Because at this point, it's, there are several different, there's 00:21:52.498 --> 00:21:57.314 the assigned Commissioner ruling, and there's the, there's Your 00:21:57.326 --> 00:22:02.288 Honor's rulings, and it seems to me these things are being broken 00:22:02.300 --> 00:22:07.273 down into certain categories, like Commission authorizations, for 00:22:07.285 --> 00:22:12.243 example, to undertake debt, and Commission findings, for example, 00:22:12.255 --> 00:22:17.376 that this is neutral to ratepayers. And so I just ask that, it does 00:22:17.388 --> 00:22:22.428 make sense to consolidate all of these at some point, and it would 00:22:22.440 --> 00:22:27.416 be helpful to have that structure in place to be able to do that. 00:22:27.441 --> 00:22:32.206 So what I'm, just so I know, let other parties continue to 00:22:32.218 --> 00:22:37.055 address this. What I'm thinking of doing, given that there's some diversity of 00:22:37.067 --> 00:22:42.022 opinion and parties have clearly given it some thought, is I'm not going to rule 00:22:42.034 --> 00:22:46.755 on it now, but what I'll do is let the parties have a chance to discuss this 00:22:46.767 --> 00:22:51.397 more during the day, and then we can revisit it, either end of day today or 00:22:51.409 --> 00:22:56.173 first thing tomorrow, and figure it out. But I'll go ahead and let parties, I 00:22:56.185 --> 00:23:00.943 know Mr. Abrams and Mr. Weissman and Miss Sheriff had also had things to say. 00:23:00.955 --> 00:23:05.725 If you want to say them now, that's fine or we can revisit later. Mr. Abrams? 00:23:06.350 --> 00:23:10.593 Yes, just very quickly, Your Honor. I just 00:23:10.605 --> 00:23:14.714 concerned regarding ensuring that there are evidentiary 00:23:14.726 --> 00:23:18.535 hearings. I think it is deserving of that. However, 00:23:18.547 --> 00:23:22.294 I would also say that I think it's very important, 00:23:22.306 --> 00:23:26.167 given the gravity of these decisions, that there are 00:23:26.179 --> 00:23:30.492 public participation hearings as a part of this. There are 00:23:30.504 --> 00:23:34.591 very real public implications to these decisions, and I 00:23:34.603 --> 00:23:38.482 think it should be incorporated into the proceeding. 00:23:38.507 --> 00:23:40.999 Thank you Mr. AbraMs. Mr. Weisman? 00:23:41.424 --> 00:23:43.679 Thank you, Your Honor, I'll follow your suggestion 00:23:43.691 --> 00:23:45.649 and defer my comments until I've had a chance to confer. 00:23:45.649 --> 00:23:46.686 Ms. Sheriff? 00:23:46.711 --> 00:23:48.960 Thank you. I will do the same. 00:23:48.985 --> 00:23:54.855 Okay. Anyone else who wishes to be heard on this now? Okay, 00:23:54.867 --> 00:24:00.303 I would suggest that parties may want to confer with each other over the 00:24:00.315 --> 00:24:06.042 lunch break or at the end of the day. Why don't we plan to, and then parties 00:24:06.054 --> 00:24:11.794 probably need, some of them may need to speak to their clients, so why don't 00:24:11.806 --> 00:24:17.511 we revisit this first thing tomorrow morning, and I will try to get a ruling 00:24:17.523 --> 00:24:23.091 quickly on it so parties have clarity as to what we're actually doing, but 00:24:23.103 --> 00:24:28.740 I think that if I, if we address it tomorrow morning, I don't think that'll 00:24:28.752 --> 00:24:34.104 prejudice anyone. Anything else on the ACR scheduling issue? Mr. Bloom? 00:24:35.129 --> 00:24:37.841 Just one last thought in your emails 00:24:37.853 --> 00:24:40.368 of yesterday afternoon, you asked about changes 00:24:40.380 --> 00:24:43.099 that PG&E might make based upon parties' positions, 00:24:43.111 --> 00:24:45.737 and I think this goes right in that same category 00:24:45.749 --> 00:24:50.994 of given what is in the ACR, you know, are there positions of the various parties that would change 00:24:51.006 --> 00:24:53.728 based upon what is in this? And that gets you right 00:24:53.740 --> 00:24:56.316 to the idea why it's also integrated because for 00:24:56.328 --> 00:24:59.192 example, board makeup or safety or operations, there's 00:24:59.204 --> 00:25:01.610 a lot of issues that she has raised or thrown 00:25:01.622 --> 00:25:06.863 out of proposal that impacts the actual testimony and positions people took in the case. So I think 00:25:06.875 --> 00:25:09.533 this goes in that same category you were searching 00:25:09.545 --> 00:25:12.268 for yesterday afternoon, it seems, as to what would 00:25:12.280 --> 00:25:15.049 people accept, would your position change based upon 00:25:15.061 --> 00:25:17.632 what's in here. Which is why it gets integrated. 00:25:17.657 --> 00:25:23.464 Yeah, I mean, as a practical matter, I was mostly looking to 00:25:23.476 --> 00:25:29.440 short-circuit the need for cross-examination on an issue, if PG&E has changed its 00:25:29.452 --> 00:25:34.939 position, that someone didn't do two hours across to figure out they didn't 00:25:34.951 --> 00:25:41.029 disagree anymore, but your point's well-taken. Okay. Let's move on from that issue. 00:25:45.040 --> 00:25:56.660 I'm going to go on to marking exhibits in a moment. Before I do that, I want to 00:25:56.660 --> 00:26:01.368 raise something, just for parties to think 00:26:01.380 --> 00:26:05.719 about. Actually, certain specific parties to think about 00:26:05.731 --> 00:26:10.293 because I got the cross examination estimates, and there is 00:26:10.305 --> 00:26:15.183 over 40 hours of cross exam which seems to be a bit problematic 00:26:15.195 --> 00:26:19.982 given the number of hearing days we have. And I have questions 00:26:19.994 --> 00:26:24.794 for three parties. First off, Mr. Geeseman, are you here? Okay 00:26:24.806 --> 00:26:29.752 so Mr. Geeseman, my understanding from a number of the documents 00:26:29.764 --> 00:26:34.035 and statements that you've made to date, is that one of 00:26:34.047 --> 00:26:38.443 your main issues is the cost and retirement of the Diablo 00:26:38.455 --> 00:26:43.319 Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. So to the extent that your cross is 00:26:43.331 --> 00:26:48.113 focusing on that issue, I would suggest that we do not need as 00:26:48.125 --> 00:26:52.691 much cross because I consider that essentially a collateral 00:26:52.703 --> 00:26:57.482 attack on another Commission decision, and I think the parties 00:26:57.494 --> 00:27:02.133 are aware of your position on Diablo Canyon and are aware of 00:27:02.145 --> 00:27:06.930 the costs, which I know is one of the issues you would want to 00:27:06.942 --> 00:27:11.587 raise. How much of your cross is on the Diablo Canyon issue? 00:27:11.612 --> 00:27:13.991 Maybe 5 or 10 percent. 00:27:14.016 --> 00:27:16.910 Okay, in that case, we will 00:27:16.910 --> 00:27:24.210 see how it goes as it goes. Mr. Bloom, my understanding, from 00:27:24.222 --> 00:27:31.443 the pleadings that have been in front of me, is that TCC is supporting the PG&E 00:27:31.455 --> 00:27:38.446 plan of reorganization, so I'm curious about the fairly significant amount of 00:27:38.458 --> 00:27:45.820 cross-examination that you have for PG&E. Mr. Bloom, what is that going to be on? 00:27:45.820 --> 00:27:51.854 Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, so the plan that was in place at the time at the TCC 00:27:51.866 --> 00:27:57.849 signed the RSA, the Restructuring Support Agreement with PG&E, is different than what the plan 00:27:57.861 --> 00:28:03.774 that was put in and has amorphous or changed but through the January 31 testimony and frankly 00:28:03.786 --> 00:28:09.712 is still subject in changing. Therefore, there are significant differences or changes between 00:28:09.724 --> 00:28:15.761 those, and our cross-examination, on one level, is aimed at looking at and bringing forth where 00:28:15.773 --> 00:28:22.074 there have been changes of what's in the plan, in terms of an understanding and getting information 00:28:22.086 --> 00:28:27.877 on those changes and what has occurred since the time we filed the RSA, and the the plan as 00:28:27.889 --> 00:28:33.943 it's now stands and it is now filed, and there are some very significant things that we need to 00:28:33.955 --> 00:28:39.928 bring to the Commission's attention and that will ultimately be briefed in terms of what those 00:28:39.940 --> 00:28:46.050 changes were and what was still needed or in our position to cut to the chase, a return to what, 00:28:46.062 --> 00:28:52.166 and I'm on a number of those changes, as to what was originally in the plan that we, at the time 00:28:52.178 --> 00:28:58.043 we sign the RSA versus what's in the plan today. There are a number of other issues that are 00:28:58.055 --> 00:29:04.030 still under discussions with the utility itself and the Governor's office and others which are 00:29:04.042 --> 00:29:10.281 confidential that may impact future changes or additional changes that are coming. So we're trying 00:29:10.293 --> 00:29:16.149 to get out ahead of that and understand what we're, where these changes have been made, what 00:29:16.161 --> 00:29:22.280 they are, how significant they are, how it impacts the testimony and the position of the debtor. 00:29:22.305 --> 00:29:26.599 Okay. Thank you. Certainly, some of that's appropriate. 00:29:26.599 --> 00:29:32.479 Some of that gives me concern for a couple reasons. One of them is if we do a 00:29:32.479 --> 00:29:40.623 bunch of cross-examination here. And then, subsequently, there's some sort of a resolution 00:29:40.635 --> 00:29:48.791 with PG&E. We have done a lot of cross examination that is not really going to be helpful, and in fact, might 00:29:48.803 --> 00:29:56.507 be very confusing to the record. And so that would be one concern of mine. And the other one is I would 00:29:56.519 --> 00:30:04.681 prefer this not to be the forum for parties to gain leverage in the bankruptcy proceeding, so which also then 00:30:04.693 --> 00:30:12.969 brings me to Mr. AbraMs. Mr. Abrams, you have a significant amount of cross examination for PG&E, including Mr. 00:30:12.981 --> 00:30:20.900 Johnson. From your pleadings, a lot of what seems to been raised is concerns that things in the bankruptcy 00:30:20.912 --> 00:30:29.416 proceeding did not go the way you wanted them to, and so I am concerned that this is either a chance to relitigate 00:30:29.428 --> 00:30:37.130 that or leverage the bankruptcy proceedings. And so the other question I have, so I'm a little leery of 00:30:37.130 --> 00:30:47.750 the quantity of cross that you have for PG&E on that. The other thing is the 00:30:47.750 --> 00:30:51.770 question, from looking at your testimony, my question is what exactly is that you 00:30:51.770 --> 00:30:57.709 are asking the Commission for in this proceeding? 00:30:58.434 --> 00:31:01.560 Your Honor I have lots of 00:31:00.860 --> 00:31:05.570 concerns about the plan of reorganization and I have lots of 00:31:05.570 --> 00:31:11.660 concerns that the testimony provided to the Commission is not reflective in the 00:31:11.660 --> 00:31:20.840 plan of reorganization. I have renewed concerns, as a victim who is doing my 00:31:20.840 --> 00:31:26.240 best to understand the implications to victims, ratepayers, and the public of 00:31:26.240 --> 00:31:35.300 what the implications are to this plan, and as a new shareholder of PG&E through 00:31:35.300 --> 00:31:39.530 this plan, I have a lot of concerns of what that will mean for folks who are 00:31:39.530 --> 00:31:44.750 rebuilding their homes, who are looking for safe, reliable, and affordable 00:31:44.750 --> 00:31:52.040 service, and very concerned that this doesn't provide it, and so I feel the 00:31:52.040 --> 00:31:54.980 need to be able to provide that cross-examination to get under those 00:31:54.980 --> 00:32:02.690 issues, and I think that a lot of those perspectives are not necessarily 00:32:02.690 --> 00:32:07.490 represented amongst other parties, and I think they are important perspectives 00:32:07.490 --> 00:32:09.192 for the Commission to hear. 00:32:09.517 --> 00:32:12.830 Thank you. I would just request for all parties to 00:32:12.530 --> 00:32:17.420 make sure that the scope of your cross-examination focuses on issues that 00:32:17.420 --> 00:32:22.280 are properly before the CPUC, and the not issues that are more appropriately 00:32:22.280 --> 00:32:27.530 before the Bankruptcy Court. I don't want this to be a collateral attack or a way 00:32:27.530 --> 00:32:31.610 to gain leverage in the bankruptcy proceeding. The PUC has a very specific 00:32:31.610 --> 00:32:37.580 statutory direction and want to make sure that we can satisfy that. The other 00:32:37.580 --> 00:32:43.910 thing, Mr. Abrams, I know that you're not a experienced litigator here. I can tell 00:32:43.910 --> 00:32:50.960 you, from experience, that more cross-examination does not always give 00:32:50.960 --> 00:32:52.488 you a better result 00:32:54.313 --> 00:32:58.550 I appreciate that coaching, and yes, I am not an 00:32:56.750 --> 00:32:59.069 experienced litigator so I appreciate that. 00:32:59.094 --> 00:33:01.010 It does not work as it does on 00:33:01.010 --> 00:33:06.725 television. Although My Cousin Vinny did a really good job. 00:33:07.950 --> 00:33:09.830 I'll try not to 00:33:08.630 --> 00:33:10.203 emulate that. 00:33:10.828 --> 00:33:15.521 Actually, his cross-examination was really good, but 00:33:14.920 --> 00:33:21.809 otherwise, don't emulate him. With that. 00:33:21.834 --> 00:33:22.830 Miss Sheriff? 00:33:23.555 --> 00:33:30.891 Thank you, Your Honor. Nora Sheriff for CLECA. I hesitate to raise this 00:33:30.903 --> 00:33:38.585 after your recent remarks, but I inadvertently left off cross-examination estimate for PG&E 00:33:38.597 --> 00:33:46.022 witness Jon Plaster. CLECA has three minutes of cross for Mr. Plaster, bringing my total 00:33:46.034 --> 00:33:53.722 cross-examination estimate to 40 minutes. I tried to be limited and narrow in my questions. 00:33:54.147 --> 00:33:59.370 Thank you. That's appreciated. I wasn't exactly sure how you could predict quite 00:33:59.370 --> 00:34:01.974 so precisely the amount of time it would take. 00:34:01.999 --> 00:34:02.842 Practice 00:34:04.167 --> 00:34:08.060 Yes, well, with some witnesses, you're likely to get their name and qualifications out in 3 minutes. 00:34:17.520 --> 00:34:23.460 Anything else before we start marking exhibits? Okay. 00:34:23.485 --> 00:34:24.167 Mr. Abrams? 00:34:24.892 --> 00:34:33.000 I'm not sure if you're looking for other scheduling concerns, but tomorrow is also the US Bankruptcy 00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:36.929 Court proceeding, and there are significant issues being discussed there, 00:34:36.929 --> 00:34:41.280 and it's a conflict, and I'm not sure if other parties also have this conflict, 00:34:41.280 --> 00:34:46.800 but given that and I can't be in more than one place, I was hoping that 00:34:46.800 --> 00:34:51.090 tomorrow would be not holding this hearing. 00:34:52.115 --> 00:34:58.560 Given the amount of cross-examination from various parties, including you, I think taking a day off 00:34:58.560 --> 00:35:04.700 might be difficult. What I think I am willing to do is try and accommodate 00:35:04.700 --> 00:35:11.010 your cross-examination of witnesses, We certainly have other people who wish 00:35:11.010 --> 00:35:19.020 to do cross, and so I would try and work, especially with PG&E, to coordinate 00:35:19.020 --> 00:35:23.400 the timing of your cross, so that you can do cross of their witnesses and don't 00:35:23.400 --> 00:35:29.070 lose an opportunity to do that. Or I think, I think, there's someone has 00:35:29.070 --> 00:35:32.060 cross for you. 00:35:38.910 --> 00:35:44.940 I want, one party, EPUC, has some cross for you, so I think what we can do is 00:35:44.940 --> 00:35:48.248 try and adjust the witness schedule so that can be available--Mr. Weisman? 00:35:48.673 --> 00:35:49.751 Pardon me for 00:35:49.350 --> 00:35:52.530 interrupting, Your Honor, I just wanted, if we're on this topic, I did want to 00:35:52.530 --> 00:35:58.440 raise one witness scheduling challenge that we will have to address, 00:35:58.440 --> 00:36:10.410 namely John Plaster, who is flying in today, so he has requested that he be on 00:36:10.410 --> 00:36:15.000 and off tomorrow. So when we get into the broader witness scheduling issues, I'm 00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:18.600 sure we'll have a jigsaw puzzle, but I did want to mention that right off the bat. 00:36:19.100 --> 00:36:24.930 Okay. So that would be the one that would be a concern for Mr. Abrams, will 00:36:24.930 --> 00:36:29.700 be Mr. Plaster. Will the other witnesses for which he has requested cross be 00:36:29.700 --> 00:36:41.595 available on other days? Let's go off the record. Off the record. 00:36:41.620 --> 00:37:17.180 (OFF THE RECORD) 00:37:23.099 --> 00:37:30.930 On the record. While off the record, we had some additional discussion about 00:37:30.930 --> 00:37:36.819 scheduling of witnesses. There's one witness who may be an issue for Mr. 00:37:36.819 --> 00:37:43.960 Abrams' cross. Given the schedule, I'm not going to do a recess tomorrow. We can try 00:37:43.960 --> 00:37:47.740 and rearrange schedules to accommodate witnesses. What I'll probably do, and my 00:37:47.740 --> 00:37:53.650 plan is to start with the PG&E witnesses and go through those. And at 00:37:53.650 --> 00:37:58.690 the end of each day, we can try and figure out the next day, and go forth, so 00:37:58.690 --> 00:38:04.660 if parties can get together and try and coordinate and figure out a schedule 00:38:04.660 --> 00:38:10.980 that works for everyone, that's easier than me trying to decode, 00:38:10.980 --> 00:38:16.930 you know, the, and this is like an LSAT, right? 00:38:16.930 --> 00:38:22.390 If Witness One is not available on Tuesday and won't sit next to Witness 00:38:22.390 --> 00:38:27.550 4, I mean, so you know, to the extent that the parties can come up with a 00:38:27.550 --> 00:38:35.290 schedule of what witnesses they expect on what days, and then, we can certainly 00:38:35.290 --> 00:38:40.450 adjust it as we go along. anything else on this before we go to marking of exhibits 00:38:41.551 --> 00:38:42.870 I had one, 00:38:42.895 --> 00:38:50.130 sorry, I just had one other tell, and that is where Chapter Six, 00:38:50.130 --> 00:38:57.510 we had three witnesses, and we were hoping that they could testify as a panel. 00:38:58.840 --> 00:39:05.710 I have no objection to that. If parties have specific problems with that or 00:39:05.710 --> 00:39:10.120 issues, we can discuss that when it's called, but certainly parties are free to 00:39:10.120 --> 00:39:16.000 address questions to one witness or to the panel. Whichever one is appropriate. 00:39:16.000 --> 00:39:28.020 So given our timing, I'm fine with that. Okay. Off the record. 00:39:28.044 --> 00:50:24.980 (OFF THE RECORD) 00:50:25.005 --> 00:50:29.104 On the record. Okay, so we have the PG&E exhibits. 00:50:33.380 --> 00:50:37.918 So, Pacific Gas and Electric Company plan of reorganization 00:50:39.542 --> 00:50:41.542 OII 2019. 00:50:41.843 --> 00:50:42.779 (inaudible from audience) 00:50:43.280 --> 00:50:44.630 Oh, sorry. 00:50:44.630 --> 00:50:50.789 With the PG&E exhibits, Pacific Gas and Electric Company plan of 00:50:50.789 --> 00:50:59.989 reorganization, prepared testimony volume one. That is marked as PG&E-1. 00:51:04.210 --> 00:51:07.789 Pacific Gas and Electric Company prepared testimony 00:51:07.814 --> 00:52:20.764 (turns mic off, inaudible) 00:52:20.789 --> 00:52:26.500 I'm sorry I think I had my mic off there, but we marked PG&E exhibits one through 00:52:26.500 --> 00:52:32.950 seven. Mr. Weisman, I know, earlier, you had indicated there were other exhibits 00:52:32.950 --> 00:52:39.220 that PG&E was planning to introduce. Are you seeking to have those marked now or would those 00:52:39.220 --> 00:52:41.682 be identified with specific witnesses? 00:52:41.707 --> 00:52:43.486 Off-the-record, one second. 00:52:43.511 --> 00:52:44.079 Off the record. 00:52:44.103 --> 00:53:08.294 (OFF THE RECORD) 00:53:08.319 --> 00:53:09.884 On the record. Mr. Weissman? 00:53:09.909 --> 00:53:12.344 Not quite ready, Your Honor. We hope to have 00:53:12.369 --> 00:53:14.384 that by tomorrow morning 00:53:14.409 --> 00:53:14.799 Thank you 00:53:14.800 --> 00:53:19.170 I'll just explain. It's for witness Jason Well. 00:53:19.170 --> 00:53:22.090 appear until (mic cuts out) 00:53:22.115 --> 00:53:27.482 Okay and what document is that? 00:53:27.507 --> 00:53:30.849 It's a data reset of, it's a set 00:53:30.849 --> 00:53:36.579 of financial information that was served to the service list, previously, and I 00:53:36.579 --> 00:53:40.119 think there might be a small correction to it that we want to make sure is 00:53:40.119 --> 00:53:43.078 accurate (mic cuts out) 00:53:43.103 --> 00:53:46.088 Thank you. Ms. Kelly? 00:53:46.113 --> 00:53:48.528 Yes, Your Honor 00:53:48.552 --> 00:53:54.600 And also, is the plan of reorganization going to be marked as an exhibit? 00:53:56.160 --> 00:53:59.546 That should be. 00:53:59.571 --> 00:54:05.920 That was filed for the Commission's direction as attached to a 00:54:05.920 --> 00:54:09.447 pleading but we can certainly mark it out. 00:54:09.472 --> 00:54:12.400 It was, if it was filed and attached 00:54:12.400 --> 00:54:14.278 to a pleading, that's sufficient. 00:54:14.303 --> 00:54:16.839 Yeah, it was filed, I guess cause there's not a 00:54:16.839 --> 00:54:21.220 specific witness who would be supporting the plan of reorganization has a 00:54:21.220 --> 00:54:22.729 document, correct? 00:54:22.754 --> 00:54:26.920 Correct, although I would say that Mr. wells does 00:54:26.920 --> 00:54:31.750 have a significant portion of his testimony devoted to describing aspects of 00:54:31.750 --> 00:54:35.770 the plan. If it would be helpful to the Commission, 00:54:35.770 --> 00:54:40.990 we certainly could introduce it as a, mark it as an exhibit. I think it is, as I 00:54:40.990 --> 00:54:45.160 say, has been filed, so it is part of the Commission's record in that sense. 00:54:45.160 --> 00:54:46.563 Miss Kelly. 00:54:46.588 --> 00:54:50.771 Yeah just as a matter, we, in our cross-examination of Mr. Wells, 00:54:50.770 --> 00:54:57.400 we'll have questions that pertain to that filing, but if 00:54:57.400 --> 00:55:01.570 it's in the record, otherwise, as long as he has a copy with him, I'm fine with that. 00:55:01.570 --> 00:55:07.180 It's filed. Certainly the plan, certainly the plan of reorganization is appropriate 00:55:07.180 --> 00:55:17.020 for parties, for PG&E to be crossed and on. If parties wish to mark it as an exhibit for 00:55:17.020 --> 00:55:22.150 some reason later, we can do that. Otherwise, we'll go with it as a 00:55:22.150 --> 00:55:31.110 filed document. Who's next? Mr. Finkelstein from TURN. Off the record. 00:55:31.134 --> 00:58:44.695 (OFF THE RECORD) 00:58:44.720 --> 00:58:49.790 On the record. While we were off the record, Mr. long 00:58:49.790 --> 00:58:59.730 provided me with copies of TURN's testimony. One document, a prepared reply 00:58:59.730 --> 00:59:06.180 testimony of Thomas Long, on behalf of The Utility Reform Network, dated 00:59:06.180 --> 00:59:14.090 February 21st 2020. That will be TURN-1. 00:59:17.510 --> 00:59:25.370 Attachments to the prepared testimony of Thomas Long, dated February 21st 2020. 00:59:25.370 --> 00:59:31.340 Will be TURN-1A. 00:59:39.640 --> 00:59:44.890 The prepared testimony of Robert Finkelstein on behalf of The Utility 00:59:44.890 --> 00:59:48.813 Reform. Off-the-record 00:59:48.837 --> 01:00:49.018 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:00:49.043 --> 01:00:56.781 On the record. So I have the prepared testimony of Robert 01:00:53.580 --> 01:00:58.230 Finkelstein. This is on behalf of The Utility Reform Network, the Energy 01:00:58.230 --> 01:01:04.080 Producers and Users Coalition, and Indicated Shippers, so I'm going to mark 01:01:04.080 --> 01:01:22.860 this TURNEPUCIS-1, and the attachments to prepared testimony of 01:01:22.860 --> 01:01:31.190 Robert Finkelstein. Again on behalf of TURN, EPUC, and IS< that will be 01:01:31.400 --> 01:01:39.110 TURNEPUCIS-1A. 01:01:44.780 --> 01:01:53.670 And then I have the testimony of Michael P Gorman who's going the other direction 01:01:53.670 --> 01:02:00.930 and is testifying on behalf of EPUC, IS, and TURN, but we will stick with that 01:02:00.930 --> 01:02:15.472 order that I started, and that will be TURNEPUCIS-2. 01:02:15.497 --> 01:02:20.343 Off the record. 01:02:20.367 --> 01:03:06.191 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:03:06.216 --> 01:03:12.110 On the record. The reply 01:03:12.210 --> 01:03:16.980 testimony of Katherine Yep on behalf of the California Large Energy 01:03:16.980 --> 01:03:29.520 Consumers Association will be marked as CLECA-1. Any others, Ms. Sheriff? 01:03:29.520 --> 01:03:31.693 Or just the one volume, correct? 01:03:31.718 --> 01:03:35.582 Your Honor, just the one volume. The attachments are included in that one volume. 01:03:35.607 --> 01:03:36.870 Very good. 01:03:36.870 --> 01:03:39.650 Thank you very much. 01:03:40.790 --> 01:03:44.360 Off the record 01:03:44.384 --> 01:04:06.274 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:04:06.299 --> 01:04:14.079 On the record. Testimony of Tom Dalzell on behalf of the Coalition of California 01:04:14.079 --> 01:04:23.950 Utility Employees. That will be CUE-1. Anything else, Miss Coss, or is that it? Thank 01:04:23.950 --> 01:04:30.809 you, Ms. Coss. Ms. Hong? Off the record. 01:04:30.833 --> 01:05:00.324 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:05:00.349 --> 01:05:02.459 On the record. 01:05:02.484 --> 01:05:08.790 Prepared reply testimony of Margaret Ameal on behalf of the City 01:05:08.790 --> 01:05:17.940 and County of San Francisco. That will be marked as CCSF-1. Thank you, Ms. Hong. 01:05:17.940 --> 01:05:26.180 And that has the attachments included correct? (inaudible from audience) Thank you. Off the record. 01:06:14.360 --> 01:06:17.993 that's correct Your Honor 01:06:21.618 --> 01:06:26.130 On the record. The prepared testimony of David Lochbaum 01:06:26.130 --> 01:06:38.220 on behalf of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is A4NR-1. And the reply 01:06:38.220 --> 01:06:44.670 testimony of John Giesemann on behalf of Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is 01:06:44.670 --> 01:06:58.730 A4NR-2. Off the record. 01:06:58.754 --> 01:09:16.675 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:09:17.400 --> 01:09:23.940 On the record. We have the reply testimony of Peter Miller, Natural 01:09:23.940 --> 01:09:40.440 Resources Defense Council. That will be marked as NRDC-1. Do we have someone 01:09:40.440 --> 01:09:44.185 from either the joint CCA's or Small Business Utility Advocates? 01:09:44.210 --> 01:09:46.974 (inaudible from audience) Okay, off the record. 01:09:46.998 --> 01:11:55.125 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:11:55.150 --> 01:12:04.610 On the record. Have reply testimony of expert Ted Howard on behalf of the Small 01:12:04.610 --> 01:12:14.450 Business Utility Advocates. That's going to be marked as SBUA-1. SBUA 01:12:14.450 --> 01:12:22.700 will be bringing one more copy for our records, and Mr. Abrams will be bringing 01:12:22.700 --> 01:12:31.483 other copies back later to be to be marked. 01:12:31.508 --> 01:12:32.634 Joint CCAs. 01:12:32.659 --> 01:12:35.090 Your Honor, Fred Fox 01:12:35.090 --> 01:12:38.240 for Joint CCAs. Right. You had asked me to bring the confidential and 01:12:38.240 --> 01:12:39.669 non-confidential both before you mark them. 01:12:39.694 --> 01:12:41.391 I did thank you for reminding me. 01:12:41.416 --> 01:12:44.470 Okay, so I 01:12:44.470 --> 01:12:52.700 believe what we have is we've marked or identified all of the previously served 01:12:52.700 --> 01:12:58.220 testimony with the exception of Mr. Abrams and the Joint CCAs. Is that 01:12:58.220 --> 01:13:04.100 correct? That appears to be correct. Mr. Miley, did you have something? 01:13:04.101 --> 01:13:07.490 (inaudible, no mic) try to use 01:13:07.490 --> 01:13:10.300 that microphone, please. 01:13:15.810 --> 01:13:19.480 Your Hoor, Matt Miley for the Public Advocate's office. As Your Honor is aware, 01:13:19.480 --> 01:13:23.590 the Public Advocate's office did not sponsor testimony. However, we do have a 01:13:23.590 --> 01:13:27.640 couple exhibits that we're hoping to have marked. These are not exhibits that 01:13:27.640 --> 01:13:31.390 we're necessarily planning to use for cross-examination, so just an inquiry as 01:13:31.390 --> 01:13:35.784 to whether this is the appropriate time to present those. 01:13:35.809 --> 01:13:37.451 I guess, at what point 01:13:37.450 --> 01:13:43.570 would you be seeking to introduce those and what would the foundation for 01:13:43.570 --> 01:13:44.688 them be? 01:13:44.713 --> 01:13:48.041 Well, we are hopeful that these are relatively non-controversial 01:13:48.040 --> 01:13:52.450 exhibits. Just for quick context, its responses, data requests responses that we 01:13:52.450 --> 01:13:58.780 received from the utility as well as a excerpts from a publicly available Form 01:13:58.780 --> 01:14:02.457 10-k that the utility submitted to SEC. 01:14:02.482 --> 01:14:05.380 So if need be you could lay a 01:14:05.380 --> 01:14:09.970 foundation for those with a PG&E witness, correct? 01:14:09.995 --> 01:14:11.500 What was the 01:14:11.500 --> 01:14:12.616 question? I'm sorry. 01:14:12.641 --> 01:14:15.910 So, presumably, you could lay a foundation for those with a 01:14:15.910 --> 01:14:21.783 PG&E witness, or if PG&E stipulates to them, then you wouldn't need that, is that correct? 01:14:21.808 --> 01:14:23.201 That's correct, Your Honor. 01:14:23.225 --> 01:14:28.870 Okay, let's wait because they're sort of 01:14:28.870 --> 01:14:32.080 it more in the nature of a cross-examine exhibit because you may need to lay a 01:14:32.080 --> 01:14:36.220 foundation with them, and they were not previously served, so I'm not going to 01:14:36.220 --> 01:14:43.060 mark those now or mark those as cross exhibits with the appropriate PG&E 01:14:43.060 --> 01:14:47.850 witness. If you want to discuss with PG&E, 01:14:48.480 --> 01:14:53.080 the stipulation of their admissibility and for what witness it 01:14:53.080 --> 01:14:55.368 would be, and then, we can address that at that time. 01:14:55.393 --> 01:14:58.015 Understood. Thank you, your honor 01:14:58.040 --> 01:14:58.963 Mr. Wiseman? 01:14:58.988 --> 01:14:59.648 While we're on that topic, 01:14:59.673 --> 01:15:02.650 I had a related question. We are 01:15:02.650 --> 01:15:09.070 serving this morning some data requests on other parties regarding the testimony 01:15:09.070 --> 01:15:17.260 they served on Friday afternoon, so two points, one, we're hopeful that parties 01:15:17.260 --> 01:15:20.890 would be able to provide their responses to those data requests by close of 01:15:20.890 --> 01:15:31.420 business on Friday, and two, we would hope to follow your lead and discuss with 01:15:31.420 --> 01:15:35.500 the other parties whether they would stipulate to the admission of their data 01:15:35.500 --> 01:15:41.290 responses as exhibits without the need to all their witnesses lay a foundation 01:15:41.290 --> 01:15:43.755 for them. 01:15:43.780 --> 01:15:51.174 Okay. Thank you well hopefully everything goes well for everyone. 01:16:10.510 --> 01:16:24.530 Let's talk about witness logistics a little bit. My assumption is we'll start 01:16:24.530 --> 01:16:32.870 with PG&E. The first witness up would be Mr. Johnson, and then, I believe you had 01:16:32.870 --> 01:16:38.060 indicated Mr. Vest, well, actually could you clarify because you had said 01:16:38.060 --> 01:16:43.010 Mr. Johnson then Mr. Vesey which would put Mr. Vesey up tomorrow, but I think 01:16:43.010 --> 01:16:47.090 you also indicated that Mr. Plaster would need to go tomorrow. Is that 01:16:47.090 --> 01:16:48.808 correct? 01:16:48.833 --> 01:16:52.679 Yes, getting into the LSAT. 01:16:52.704 --> 01:16:53.961 And then I'm 01:16:53.960 --> 01:17:00.110 assuming that we probably, that we may not finish with Mr. Johnson today. 01:17:00.110 --> 01:17:05.000 Right. So our reference would have been Johnson and then Vesey. 01:17:05.000 --> 01:17:10.850 However, Plaster, as I mentioned, hoping would go on and off tomorrow, so my 01:17:10.850 --> 01:17:16.160 suggestion would be let's start with Johnson, see how far we get, and then, 01:17:16.160 --> 01:17:23.360 tomorrow, we'll either call Vesey or Plaster, depending on where we 01:17:23.360 --> 01:17:26.119 are in the process, 01:17:26.144 --> 01:17:27.443 and then 01:17:27.468 --> 01:17:31.340 And then Mr. Vesey might be available to come back 01:17:31.340 --> 01:17:33.694 but Mr. Plaster would not, is that correct? 01:17:33.719 --> 01:17:34.550 That is correct 01:17:34.550 --> 01:17:50.990 And I might also mention Ms. Brownell would be available on this week, so 01:17:50.990 --> 01:17:58.430 Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Mr. Wells, we're hoping will be on and 01:17:58.430 --> 01:18:01.660 off on Thursday. 01:18:03.859 --> 01:18:11.059 Okay. Depending on how long the cross is, could go Johnson, Vesey, Plaster, Brownell, 01:18:11.059 --> 01:18:14.570 Wells, but if the cross is longer, we'll probably have to put Vesey a little bit 01:18:14.570 --> 01:18:16.522 later in the order. 01:18:16.547 --> 01:18:21.349 Okay to the extent parties can confer amongst 01:18:21.349 --> 01:18:27.050 themselves, during breaks and lunch recesses, and try and coordinate timing 01:18:27.050 --> 01:18:33.679 and come up with a cross plan, that is encouraged because I don't want to have 01:18:33.679 --> 01:18:39.889 to try to figure it out, but I will revisit regularly where we're at, who's 01:18:39.889 --> 01:18:46.510 up next in what order. Do parties have a preference of order of cross examination 01:18:46.510 --> 01:18:52.728 that would be either consistently or per witness? 01:18:52.753 --> 01:18:53.663 Mister Alcantar? 01:18:53.688 --> 01:18:54.801 Yes, Your Honor. I'd 01:18:54.800 --> 01:19:00.649 like to be heard on that. First with respect to you admonition about friendly 01:19:00.649 --> 01:19:03.939 cross, well, well observed, (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:19:03.963 --> 01:19:18.375 (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:19:18.400 --> 01:19:32.230 some statements out (inaudible, mic cuts out) also 01:19:32.254 --> 01:20:02.305 (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:20:02.330 --> 01:20:13.162 so what I would ask is, and this rule should apply to all parties. (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:20:13.186 --> 01:20:29.525 (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:20:29.550 --> 01:20:33.810 similarly on the reverse side of that (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:20:33.834 --> 01:20:48.388 (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:20:48.413 --> 01:20:55.185 In terms of efficiencies, I can assure you that, while TURN and (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:20:55.209 --> 01:21:27.395 (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:21:27.420 --> 01:21:45.630 The last point I wish to make (inaudible, mic cuts out) and that would be a 01:21:45.654 --> 01:22:21.295 (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:22:21.320 --> 01:22:44.580 start with Mr. Johnson (inaudible, mic cuts out) other parties (inaudible, mic cuts out) once Mr. Johnson is done, (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:22:44.580 --> 01:22:55.560 others testify, that's fine (inaudible, mic cuts out) and I just wanted to get those (inaudible, mic cuts out) 01:22:55.560 --> 01:23:07.550 Thank you, Mr. Alcantar. I'm not going to do the witness exclusion. It's not a typical 01:23:07.550 --> 01:23:15.200 PUC process, given that we have kind of a crossover of adjudicatory policy 01:23:15.200 --> 01:23:21.570 legislative functions. Also, this is being webcast so I'm not 01:23:21.570 --> 01:23:29.990 exactly sure how well I could actually enforce such a limitation, so parties are 01:23:29.990 --> 01:23:35.450 free to have whoever they want in the room or watching the webcast 01:23:35.450 --> 01:23:48.470 I think, in general, yeah, sometimes, it's hard to figure out who's more aligned, 01:23:48.470 --> 01:23:56.310 and I think it can vary on issue from issue, so I think what we might do is, and 01:23:56.310 --> 01:24:03.360 I think what we might end up with is more just logistical timing, in terms of 01:24:03.360 --> 01:24:07.560 who's available to do cross when. I don't have a problem with the concept of more 01:24:07.560 --> 01:24:15.000 aligned first. As I said in the email, friendly cross is discouraged. I don't 01:24:15.000 --> 01:24:20.070 mind like a very brief clarification of something along the lines of did you 01:24:20.070 --> 01:24:24.180 mean three here or does it mean three and a half, I mean, something that's super 01:24:24.180 --> 01:24:28.580 short and clarifying and you're aligned, I don't have a problem with that. 01:24:28.580 --> 01:24:33.600 Anything that starts to be tossing softballs the witness, 01:24:33.600 --> 01:24:40.590 no, let's not go there. Parties should also be aware, a lot of you have appeared in 01:24:40.590 --> 01:24:48.000 front of me before, so you should know that while it will not be as strict as a 01:24:48.000 --> 01:24:54.480 civil or criminal court, I will grant motions to strike answers as 01:24:54.480 --> 01:24:58.020 non-responsive, so please instruct your witnesses to 01:24:58.020 --> 01:25:03.450 just answer the question, and that if they have more explanation, they can do 01:25:03.450 --> 01:25:08.870 that on redirect. We have enough stuff to get through here without having 01:25:08.870 --> 01:25:13.530 witnesses rambling on telling me the history of ball bearing manufacturing 01:25:13.530 --> 01:25:20.220 in Sweden. Which actually did hear about when I was doing cross examination, so 01:25:20.220 --> 01:25:23.600 that's something to keep in mind. 01:25:30.460 --> 01:25:39.250 For starting with Mr. Johnson, what I'm thinking is, I was going to have Mr. 01:25:39.250 --> 01:25:44.500 Abrams go last with his large cross-examination estimate, but maybe, 01:25:44.500 --> 01:25:51.690 what I'll do is give him a time certain, 01:25:52.679 --> 01:26:06.360 and we can start with some of the ones who have smaller cross so. Off the record 01:26:06.384 --> 01:28:52.304 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:28:52.329 --> 01:28:59.630 On the record. So tag-team cross, or multiple 01:28:59.630 --> 01:29:09.620 attorney cross. So if there's more than one attorney for a party or group of 01:29:09.620 --> 01:29:14.390 parties that needs to ask questions for a witness, if it's previously determined 01:29:14.390 --> 01:29:19.760 that certain attorney, one attorney will ask questions on one topic and another 01:29:19.760 --> 01:29:24.380 attorney asks questions on another topic, that's okay, need to know that in 01:29:24.380 --> 01:29:29.660 advance. What I will not have is tag team cross where one attorney is asking 01:29:29.660 --> 01:29:33.560 questions and then the other one jumps in and ask questions. So it's one 01:29:33.560 --> 01:29:39.580 attorney asking questions on the topic at a time, so no tag-team 01:29:39.580 --> 01:29:44.170 cross-examination, so if you're going to have more than one attorney doing 01:29:44.170 --> 01:29:49.790 cross-examination, I want to know with the first attorney up who's doing cross 01:29:49.790 --> 01:29:54.110 on what topics, so that they that witness is only faced with with one attorney at 01:29:54.110 --> 01:30:05.110 a time, and we'll figure out differently. It gets really tricky with a panel so. 01:30:05.110 --> 01:30:11.950 But I think we should do that. So off the record. 01:30:11.974 --> 01:34:55.969 (OFF THE RECORD) 01:34:55.994 --> 01:35:02.450 On the record. Sorry. Mr. Miller, I 01:35:02.450 --> 01:35:07.150 understand during an off-the-record conversation that EPUC has waived its 01:35:07.150 --> 01:35:14.540 cross-examination of NRDC Witness Miller and parties have indicated, no other 01:35:14.540 --> 01:35:21.080 party has indicated that they have cross for Mr. Miller. At this time, do you wish 01:35:21.080 --> 01:35:24.059 to have your exhibit admitted to the record? 01:35:24.084 --> 01:35:25.250 I do, Your Honor. 01:35:25.250 --> 01:35:30.080 Thank you. Is there any objection to the receipt of NRDC-1 into the record of 01:35:30.080 --> 01:35:37.040 this proceeding? Seeing none, NRDC-1 is admitted. Thank you, Mr. Alcantar. Thank 01:35:37.040 --> 01:35:46.460 you, Mr. Miller. Anything else before we take a recess? Okay. Thank you very much. 01:35:46.460 --> 01:35:50.200 we will be in recess until 1:00 p.m.