BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Investigation on the Commission s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Southern California Edison Company (U338-E), Cellco Partnership LLC d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Sprint Communications Company LP, NextG Networks of California Inc. and Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California and AT&T Mobility LLC Regarding the Utility Facilities and the Canyon Fire in Malibu of October I (Filed January 29, 2009) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S (U 338-E) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF RULE 1.1 CLAIM RELATED TO DATA REQUEST RESPONSES DATED DECEMBER 10, 2010 (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) James M. Lehrer Brian A. Cardoza 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) brian.cardoza@sce.com Charles C. Read Haley McIntosh JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street Los Angeles, California Telephone: (213) Facsimile: (213) ccread@jonesday.com Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY December 5, 2011

2 I. INTRODUCTION Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ) brings this motion for summary adjudication of the Consumer Protection and Safety Division s ( CPSD s ) claim that SCE violated Rule 1.1 in two data request responses it provided to CPSD on December 10, The responses, taken together, cannot reasonably be interpreted to say that all equipment from the Malibu Canyon fire was removed and retained at SCE s warehouse in Westminster. 1 Furthermore, CPSD s only witness on this issue acknowledges that prior to preparing these Data Requests ( DRs ), CPSD had already learned that certain equipment had not been kept at the warehouse, so these responses could not have misled the staff. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND CPSD brings a Rule 1.1 allegation concerning SCE s DR responses dated December 10, 2010 and seeks imposition of a $200,000 penalty against SCE. Prehearing Conference Statement of CPSD at 6 (Oct. 21, 2011). Testimony from CPSD s Pejman Moshfegh provides the only support for this allegation. CPSD Rebuttal Testimony (Moshfegh) at (Apr. 29, 2011). 2 He claims that SCE misled the Commission by responding to DRs concerning evidence from the Malibu Canyon fire. The requests and responses at issue state: Data Request 2-1: Please provide the location of any and all physical or factual evidence under your or your agent s physical control, custody, or possession related to the incident. Identify with particularity each piece of evidence. Provide all measurements and technical specifications of said evidence. Identify with specificity the height/location that said evidence had previously been affixed to the subject poles. 1 As set forth in SCE s Motion for Summary Adjudication of Spoliation of Evidence Claim (filed concurrently herewith), there is no dispute that portions of damaged conductor and telecommunications cable and parts of a KPF switch were never sent to SCE s warehouse. 2 All references to Ex._ are to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of John Gehart filed herewith. To reduce the volume of this filing, SCE attaches to the declaration the data requests and responses cited in this motion but not cited testimony or filings available on the Commission s website. SCE will provide cited testimony or filings at the ALJ s request. For ease of reference, testimony served by CPSD on May 3, 2010 is referenced as CPSD Direct Testimony, testimony served on April 29, 2011 is CPSD Rebuttal Testimony, and testimony served on August 29, 2011 is CPSD Reply Testimony. Testimony served by SCE on November 18, 2010 is referenced as SCE Responsive Testimony and testimony served on June 29, 2011 is SCE Surrebuttal Testimony. 1

3 Response to Data Request 2-1: Subject to all objections, SCE responds as follows: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles was removed from Malibu Canyon and retained is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility and has had continuous access thereto. Data Request 2-5: Please provide the name and contact information of any person or entity that has taken possession of any physical evidence removed from the site of the incident. This data request includes persons who came in contact (in any capacity) with the evidence after the incident. Identify all facts, information, documents, evidence, and/or other witnesses that were perceived by the witness, related to this incident, the facilities involved in this incident, the repairs of the facilities related to the incident, and any pole loading calculations/analysis conducted. Response to Data Request 2-5: Subject to all objections, SCE responds as follows: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles removed from Malibu Canyon and retained is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility. The evidence was taken into custody under the supervision of Fredrick McCollum. SCE s Responses to CPSD s Nov. 29, 2010 Data Requests at DRs 2-1 and 2-5 (Dec. 10, 2010), Ex. 1. Mr. Moshfegh admits that by the time CPSD sent these DRs, CPSD already was aware of the deposition testimony of SCE s Frederick McCollum in the civil litigation where he answered questions about what equipment was and was not in the warehouse. CPSD Reply Testimony (Moshfegh) at 29 (Aug. 29, 2011) ( Sometime shortly following Mr. McCollum s October 14, 2010 deposition, taken by the deputy attorney general, information regarding spoliation was relayed to CPSD. ). Despite such knowledge of what it now characterizes as spoliation, CPSD did not ask SCE for a copy of that deposition transcript 3 or simply send a DR to SCE to confirm 3 SCE later voluntarily provided to CPSD the transcript from the deposition of Mr. McCollum in the civil action prior to his deposition by CPSD. SCE Surrebuttal Testimony (Ramos) at 4. 2

4 what equipment was not in the warehouse. Instead, it sent a set of 54 DRs (many with subparts) which SCE answered just 11 days later. Mr. Moshfegh claims that SCE s responses to DR 2-1 and DR 2-5 violated Rule 1.1 by indicating that all equipment associated with the failed poles had been retained in the Westminster warehouse. 4 III. ARGUMENT A. Summary Adjudication Standard Under California law, a motion for summary judgment must be granted if the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 437c(c). The Commission has applied this standard when considering motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication. Cox Cal. Telecom, LLC v. Global NAPs Cal., Inc., D , 2007 Cal. PUC LEXIS 8 at *4; Westcom Long Distance, Inc. v. Pac. Bell, D , 1994 Cal. PUC LEXIS 339 at *11-13; County Sanitation Dist. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., D , 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 275 at *8. Also, the Commission has recognized that the summary judgment procedure promotes and protects the administration of justice and expedites litigation by the elimination of needless trials. Westcom, 1994 Cal. PUC LEXIS 339 at *12. B. Rule 1.1 Rule 1.1 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides, in relevant part: Any person who offers testimony at a hearing by such act represents that he or she is authorized to do so and agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges; and never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. 4 The introduction to SCE s December 10, 2010 responses requested that [b]efore CPSD makes any assumptions regarding the accuracy and completeness of SCE s responses and the legitimacy and scope of its objections, CPSD should make its concerns known in the meet and confer process. SCE s Responses to CPSD s Nov. 29, 2010 Data Requests at 1, Ex. 1. Despite this request, CPSD did not raise its concern regarding SCE s Response to DR 2-1 and DR 2-5 prior to bringing its Rule 1.1 claim. 3

5 To establish a Rule 1.1 violation, CPSD must first show that a party used an artifice or made a false statement of law or fact. Rule 1.1. The Commission generally requires that a party alleging a Rule 1.1 violation must show that there was purposeful intent, recklessness, or gross negligence to mislead the Commission. Order Instituting Investigation (OII) Into S. Cal. Edison Co. s Elec. Line Constr., Operation, and Maint. Practices, D , 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 207 at *53; 5 Application of Pac. Fiber Link, L.L.C. for Modification of its Certificate of Pub. Convenience and Necessity, D , 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 533 at *29 (record failed to show that company violated Rule 1 in submitting registration form because Rule 1 violations require purposeful intent, recklessness, or gross negligence in regard to communications with the Commission. ); Investigation on the Commission s Own Motion into the Operations, Practices and Conduct of Starving Students, Inc., D , 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1046 at *42 (CPSD failed to establish that Starving Students knowingly and willfully filed false quarterly reports that understated revenue). Although the Commission has stated that Rule 1.1 violations may be inadvertent, a party still must act recklessly or with gross negligence to be liable for a Rule 1.1 violation. 6 The Commission also has said that whether a party acted with direct intent to deceive the Commission goes to the question of how much weight to assign to any penalty that may be assessed. Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) on the Commission s Own Motion into Competition for Local Exch. Serv., D , 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 653 at *14. But this 5 In the SCE Electric Line case, CPSD alleged two separate Rule 1 violations. With respect to one, the Commission found confusion in SCE s communication practices, but found no intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent failure of SCE to investigate how different SCE districts defined new business order. In the other, the Commission found miscommunication occurred regarding the work of a subcontractor, but not the type of conduct to constitute a Rule 1 violation. Rule 1 was renumbered as Rule 1.1 by the Commission s 2006 revision of its Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rulemaking to Update, Clarify and Recodify Rules of Practice and Procedure, D , 2006 Cal. PUC LEXIS In D , for example, the Commission stated that the party was subject to a penalty for its violation of Rule 1.1 even if the violation was inadvertent. In the Matter of the Application of Bigredwire.com, Inc., D , 2009 Cal. PUC LEXIS 197 at *21. This was cited in OII Into the Billing Practices and Conduct of Legacy Long Distance Int l, Inc., I , 2010 Cal. PUC LEXIS 240 at *47. This statement is consistent with the precedent that a Rule 1.1 violation does not require a party to purposefully mislead the Commission, but that a party must act recklessly or with gross negligence. 4

6 does not mean that a party automatically violates Rule 1.1 anytime it makes an incorrect statement; instead, in the absence of direct intent, a party must act recklessly or with gross negligence to trigger Rule 1.1. The Commission recognized this point when it explained in the very next sentence that [t]he lack of direct intent to deceive does not necessarily avoid a Rule 1 violation. Id. (emphasis added). This sentence is consistent with well-settled Commission precedent that a party can violate Rule 1.1 if it makes a misleading statement through recklessness or gross negligence instead of directly intending to mislead the Commission. 7 Further, CPSD must show that it acted on the claimed misstatement before it can be said to have been misled within the ordinary definition of that term. 8 See, e.g., Investigation on the Commission s Own Motion into the Practices of the S. Cal. Edison Co., D , 2008 Cal. PUC LEXIS 401 at *1 (data underlying Rule 1.1 violation was used by Commission to determine Performance Based Ratemaking customer rewards); OIR on the Commission s Own Motion into Competition for Local Exch. Serv., D , 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 653 at *13 (finding Rule 1.1 violation where the results of [the party s] actions did have the effect of misleading the staff ). Finally, the Commission has recognized that honest mistakes can and do occur and that an honest mistake does not warrant a finding that Rule 1.1 has been violated. See In the 7 Dictum in a footnote in a recent OII does not change the important requirements for a Rule 1.1 violation. See OII Into the Operations, Practices, and Conduct of Telseven, et al., I , 2010 Cal. PUC LEXIS 462 at *83, n.146 (applicants failure to provide their full legal name, amidst many charged violations, may subject applicants to strict liability under Rule 1.1). While the footnote states that Rule 1.1 is a strict liability rule comparable to public welfare or police power laws, the four consumer protection decisions cited to support this proposition do not address Rule 1.1, and that footnote does not purport to change the well-settled Commission precedent on the requirements for a Rule 1.1 violation. One cannot reasonably assert that Rule 1.1 is a public welfare or police power offense under California law when it is advanced as the basis for hundreds of thousands of dollars in proposed fines. See People v. Simon, 9 Cal. 4th 493, 519 (1995) (one element of a regulatory or public welfare offense is that the penalty for those offenses is usually small, and the conviction does not do grave damage to an offender s reputation. ). 8 The plain language of Rule 1.1 requires that a person... mislead the Commission or its staff. Merriam Webster Unabridged Third New International Dictionary defines mislead as: to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit. 5

7 Matter of the Application of Skynet Commc ns, Inc., D , 2009 Cal. PUC LEXIS 41 at *9 ( Notwithstanding that Skynet initially provided CPSD with incorrect information, we decline to adopt CPSD s recommendation that a fine be imposed on Skynet for an alleged Rule 1.1 violation. We believe that Skynet made an honest mistake and promptly amended its pleadings as soon as it became aware that intrastate revenue was, in fact, involved in this matter... ). C. CPSD Cannot Establish A Rule 1.1 Violation Related To SCE s December 10, 2010 Data Request Responses CPSD s Rule 1.1 claim must be dismissed because CPSD cannot establish that it acted with purposeful intent, recklessness, or gross negligence to mislead CPSD or the Commission in responding to DR 2-1 and DR 2-5. See D , 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 207 at *53. Mr. Moshfegh s testimony purports to quote SCE s responses to DR 2-1 and DR 2-5 as being identical: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles was removed from Malibu Canyon and retained [sic] is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility and has had continuous access thereto. CPSD Rebuttal Testimony (Moshfegh) at 107:19-108:9. In fact, SCE s responses to these two DRs were not identical. The answer to DR 2-5 actually reads as follows: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles removed from Malibu Canyon and retained is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility and has had continuous access thereto. SCE s Responses to CPSD s Nov. 29, 2010 Data Requests at DR 2-5, Ex. 1. This answer is clear: all of the evidence that was removed and retained is available in the warehouse. This response does not say that all of the removed evidence was retained. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Moshfegh who has excoriated Respondents for not verifying the accuracy of their 6

8 DR responses has authored sworn testimony that misquotes SCE s response in a way that supports his claim of a Rule 1.1 violation. In contrast to the response to DR 2-5, SCE s answer to DR 2-1 was garbled due to a typographical error. Mr. Moshfegh inserts a [sic] reference so as to make it appear that SCE is claiming all equipment has been retained in the warehouse. But if one looks at the correctly written answer to DR 2-5, it is clear that the typographical error in the DR 2-1 response was the omission of the word that which would otherwise make this response essentially identical in meaning to the response to DR 2-5: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles [that] was removed from Malibu Canyon and retained is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility and has had continuous access thereto. SCE s Responses to CPSD s Nov. 29, 2010 Data Requests at DR 2-1, Ex. 1. SCE certainly regrets the typographical error in its response to DR 2-1 which might have caused some confusion to CPSD. However, there is no evidence in the record that would support a conclusion that SCE intended to mislead CPSD in its response to this DR when it answered DR 2-5 in a way that could not cause such confusion. As the Commission has recognized, honest mistakes can and do occur, and an honest mistake such as an obvious typographical error does not warrant a finding that Rule 1.1 has been violated. See Application of Skynet Commc ns, Inc., D , 2009 Cal. PUC LEXIS 41 at 9 ( Notwithstanding that Skynet initially provided CPSD with incorrect information, we decline to adopt CPSD s recommendation that a fine be imposed on Skynet for an alleged Rule 1.1 violation. ). Furthermore, as Mr. Moshfegh admits, CPSD already knew (from the McCollum civil deposition transcript) before it even propounded these DRs exactly what equipment attached to the failed poles had been retained and what had not been retained. See CPSD Reply Testimony (Moshfegh) at 29 (Aug. 29, 2011). Thus it could not have been misled by these answers even if they are both read as Mr. Moshfegh tries to suggest. Finally, at a minimum, if CPSD was 7

9 uncertain on this issue, it should have sought clarification in a meet and confer as to what was meant by the garbled answer to DR 2-1 in comparison to the response to DR 2-5. See SCE s Responses to CPSD s Nov. 29, 2010 Data Requests at 1, Ex. 1 ( Before CPSD makes any assumptions regarding the accuracy and completeness of SCE s responses and the legitimacy and scope of its objections, CPSD should make its concerns known in the meet and confer process. ). IV. CONCLUSION CPSD cannot establish that SCE s responses on December 10, 2010 to DRs 2-1 and 2-5 violated Rule 1.1. Accordingly, SCE is entitled to a grant of summary adjudication dismissing this allegation and CPSD s request for imposition of a $200,000 penalty. SCE respectfully requests oral argument on this motion. Dated: December 5, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Charles C. Read Charles C. Read Haley McIntosh JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street Los Angeles, California Telephone: (213) Facsimile: (213) ccread@jonesday.com James M. Lehrer Brian A. Cardoza 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: (626) Facsimile: (626) brian.cardoza@sce.com Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 8

10

11

12 EXHIBIT 1

13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION S THIRD SET OF DATA REQUESTS TO SCE SERVED ON NOVEMBER 29, 2010 Southern California Edison Company ( SCE ) hereby provides objections and responses to the Consumer Protection and Safety Division s ( CPSD s ) third set of data requests dated November 29, These responses are made based upon SCE s investigations and inquiries during the course of this proceeding and reflect the current state of its knowledge and understanding with respect to the matters raised in these requests. Investigation, discovery and development of SCE s positions and information in response to these requests is ongoing and continuing. SCE reserves its rights to supplement its responses as further information and analysis becomes available, and to correct any inadvertent errors or omissions in these responses. SCE also reserves its right to modify or supplement its responses to these requests. SCE notes that CPSD has served 54 numbered data requests but almost all of them contain multiple, separate questions and many have specific subparts. In all, SCE estimates that CPSD has asked at least 300 separate inquires. Many purport to require SCE to produce every document or all information on very broad topics without any time limitation. Necessarily, SCE has had to not only make objections but adopt some reasonable parameters for interpreting and limiting the requests. SCE has tried to describe those interpretations and limitations in its responses and objections. SCE does not expect CPSD to agree with its approach to all of these inquiries. However, given the volume, the meet and confer process will be essential not only in resolving disagreements but also in clarifying the extent and nature of disagreement between SCE and CPSD for the data requests that CPSD considers the most important. Before CPSD makes any assumptions regarding the accuracy and completeness of SCE s responses and the legitimacy and scope of its objections, CPSD should make its concerns known in the meet and confer process. SCE will move to dismiss any motion to compel or any motion for sanctions concerning any issue which not first been raised in the meet and confer process. The Joint Respondents are concurrently filing objections and responses to Data Requests that request information related to testifying witnesses sponsored by Joint Respondents. SCE hereby incorporates and refers CPSD to the concurrently filed Joint Respondents responses for Dr. Peterka and Messrs Rosenthal, and Schulte. GENERAL OBJECTIONS SCE objects generally to the extent that any data request seeks information that is: Unrelated to Respondents Testimony SCE objects to those Requests that seek information that is not relevant at this stage of the proceeding or not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SCE objects to those Requests that seek information unrelated to any subject addressed in Respondents Direct Testimony served on Thursday, November 18, At this stage of the proceeding, it is inappropriate for CPSD to seek information on issues that were or could have been addressed in CPSD s initial discovery before CPSD prepared its own Direct Testimony as served on May 3, CPSD s discovery must now be limited to information it needs in order to file its rebuttal testimony due on January 10, The

14 Southern California Edison Malibu Fire I DATA REQUEST SET Malibu Fire CPSD-03 November 29, 2010 Prepared by: SCE Counsel Witness: Not applicable Data Request 2-1: Please provide the location of any and all physical or factual evidence under your or your agent s physical control, custody, or possession related to the incident. Identify with particularity each piece of evidence. Provide all measurements and technical specifications of said evidence. Identify with specificity the height/location that said evidence had previously been affixed to the subject poles. Objection: Incorporating all general objections, SCE objects to this Request. SCE objects to this Request because it is vague or ambiguous, or both, and, as such, would require SCE to speculate as to the meaning of the Request. SCE objects to this Request because it asks questions duplicative of and/or seeks to obtain information, documents or other materials previously provided, requested or otherwise available to the CPSD, and/or are within the possession, custody, or control of the CPSD, and/or are publicly available. SCE objects to this Request because it calls for excessive time and resources of Respondents to complete, compared to the value of the information sought; compared to alternative, more defined requests; and/or compared to other sources of information available to CPSD. SCE objects to this Request because it fails to include appropriate limitations as to time, location, or subject matter, and as such, is overbroad. Without such limitations, this Request is unduly burdensome and seek irrelevant information. Response to Data Request 2-1: Subject to all objections, SCE responds as follows: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles was removed from Malibu Canyon and retained is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility and has had continuous access thereto

15 Southern California Edison Malibu Fire I DATA REQUEST SET Malibu Fire CPSD-03 November 29, 2010 Prepared by: SCE Counsel Witness: Not applicable Data Request 2-5: Please provide the name and contact information of any person or entity that has taken possession of any physical evidence removed from the site of the incident. This data request includes persons who came in contact (in any capacity) with the evidence after the incident. Identify all facts, information, documents, evidence, and/or other witnesses that were perceived by the witness, related to this incident, the facilities involved in this incident, the repairs of the facilities related to the incident, and any pole loading calculations/analysis conducted. Objection: Incorporating all general objections, SCE objects to this Request. SCE objects to this Request because it is vague or ambiguous, or both, and, as such, would require SCE to speculate as to the meaning of the Request. SCE objects to this Request because it asks questions duplicative of and/or seeks to obtain information, documents or other materials previously provided, requested or otherwise available to the CPSD, and/or are within the possession, custody, or control of the CPSD, and/or are publicly available. SCE objects to this Request because it calls for excessive time and resources of Respondents to complete, compared to the value of the information sought; compared to alternative, more defined requests; and/or compared to other sources of information available to CPSD. SCE objects to this Request because it fails to include appropriate limitations as to time, location, or subject matter, and as such, is overbroad. Without such limitations, this Request is unduly burdensome and seek irrelevant information. Response to Data Request 2-5: Subject to all objections, SCE responds as follows: SCE responds that all of the physical evidence associated with the failed poles removed from Malibu Canyon and retained is located in a SCE facility in Westminster, California. The CPSD has already observed this evidence during its visit to the Westminster facility. The evidence was taken into custody under the supervision of Fredrick McCollum

16

17 CPUC - Service Lists - I Page 1 of 6 12/5/2011 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: I CPUC - OII INTO THE FILER: CPUC LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: NOVEMBER 29, 2011 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties EDWARD MOLDAVSKY BRIAN CARDOZA ATTORNEY LEGAL DIVISION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 320 West 4th Street Suite WALNUT GROVE AVENUE Los Angeles, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: CPSD FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ANNA KAPETANAKOS GRETA BANKS GENERAL ATTORNEY AT LAW AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA AT&T SERVICES INC. 525 MARKET STREET, 19TH FLOOR 525 MARKET STREET, ROOM 2026 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, FOR: AT&T SERVICES, INC. INC. PETER W. HANSCHEN STEPHEN KUKTA ATTORNEY AT LAW DIRECTOR - STATE REGULATORY MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP (5113) 425 MARKET STREET 201 MISSION STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP LLP D/B/A FOR: SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC VERIZON WIRELESS THOMAS J. MACBRIDE, JR. EARL NICHOLAS SELBY ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICES OF EARL NICHOLAS SELBY GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI DAY & LAMPREY LLP 530 LYTTON AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR 505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 PALO ALTO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: SPRINT NEXTEL/SPRINT NEXTEL

18 CPUC - Service Lists - I Page 2 of 6 12/5/2011 FOR: NEXT G NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA TELEPHONY PCS, LP ANITA TAFF-RICE CYNTHIA MANHEIM COUNSEL GENERAL ATTORNEY CALTEL CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC 1547 PALOS VERDES, NE 72ND WAY, ROOM RTC 1 WALNUT CREEK, CA REDMOND, WA FOR: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FOR: AT&T COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY Information Only JAMES OLIVA MORRISON & FOERSTER ONLY ONLY, CA ROBERT A. MILLAR SR. REGULATORY COUNSEL NEXTG NETWORKS, INC. ONLY ONLY, CA DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ONLY ONLY, CA WILLIAM D. WALLACE SENIOR COUNSEL VERIZON WIRELESS 1300 I STREET, NW SUITE 400 WEST WASHINGTON, DC J. SCOTT KUHN DAN MARMALEFSKY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 555 W. 5TH., SUITE W. TEMPLE STREET, RM 648 LOS ANGELES, CA LOS ANGELES, CA FOR: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP LLP D/B/A FOR: LOS ANGELES COUNTY VERIZON WIRELESS MATTHEW D. PETERSON ROSANA MIRAMONTES MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 555 W. 5TH, STE S. SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES, CA LOS ANGELES, CA THOMAS HELLER HALEY MCINTOSH CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JONES DAY 300 S. SPRING STREET 555 S. FLOWER ST., 50TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA LOS ANGELES, CA JOHN GEHART MARTHA MANRIQUEZ JONES DAY JONES DAY 555 S. FLOWER ST., 50TH FLOOR 555 S. FLOWER ST., 50TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA LOS ANGELES, CA CHARLES READ CRAIG HUNTER 555 S. FLOWER ST. ATTORNEY AT LAW LOS ANGELES, CA WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 555 S. FLOWER STREET, SUITE 2900 LOS ANGELES, CA

19 CPUC - Service Lists - I Page 3 of 6 12/5/2011 HANS LAETZ JACQUE LOPEZ ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTER VERIZON CALIFORNIA LNG NEWS SERVICE 2535 W. HILLCREST DR., CAM21LB 6402 SURFSIDE WAY NEWBURY PARK, CA MALIBU, CA JESUS G. ROMAN LORRAINE A. KOCEN VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC W HILLCREST DR., MC CAM21LB 2535 W. HILLCREST DRIVE, CAM21LS NEWBURY PARK, CA NEWBURY PARK, CA TIMOTHY HANIGAN CASE ADMINISTRATION LANG HANIGAN & CARVALHO, LLP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY OXNARD STREET., STE WALNUT GROVE AVENUE WOODLAND HILLS, CA ROSEMEAD, CA DAVID MEAD JAMES M. LEHRER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SENIOR ATTORNEY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE., PO BOX 800 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ROSEMEAD, CA WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA LYNDA ZIEGLER ROBERT F. LEMOINE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ATTORNEY AT LAW 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE., PO BOX 800 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ROSEMEAD, CA WALNUT GROVE AVE. SUITE 346L ROSEMEAD, CA SHAWN CAINE LISA URICK LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN CAINE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 1221 CAMINO DEL MAR 101 ASH STREET, HQ-12B DEL MAR, CA SAN DIEGO, CA LARRY DAVIS KEVIN O'BEIRNE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 101 ASH STREET 8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32D SAN DIEGO, CA SAN DIEGO, CA GREG GRIZZEL MICHAEL BAGLEY CAL FIRE VERIZON WIRELESS 2524 MULBERRY STREET SAND CANYON AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CA IRVINE, CA CRAIG SIMON SUSAN MUNCEY BERGER KAHN BERGER KAHN 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE PARK PLAZA, SUITE 650 IRVINE, CA IRVINE, CA EDWARD MCGAH JAMES CONOR DOYLE VERIZON WIRELESS PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SAN CANYON AVENUE, E BEALE ST., B10B IRVINE, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

20 CPUC - Service Lists - I Page 4 of 6 12/5/2011 FOR: VERIZON WIRELESS - IRVINE BARBARA H. CLEMENT CASE COORDINATION PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 BEALE STREET, B30A 77 BEALE ST., PO BOX MC B9A SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA ERROL KISSINGER HUGH OSBORNE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AT&T CALIFORNIA 77 BEALE STREET; MC B10A 525 MARKET STREET, 20TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA KEITH KROM KRISTIN L. JACOBSON, ESQ. GENERAL ATTORNEY REGULATORY COUNSEL AT&T CALIFORNIA SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION 525 MARKET STREET, SUITE MISSION STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA ROSS JOHNSON RUDY REYES, ESQ. AREA MGR - REGULATORY ASSIST. GEN. COUNSEL AT&T CALIFORNIA VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC. 525 MARKET STREET, 19TH FL, RM SPEAR STREET, 7TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA THOMAS SELHORST MARGARET L. TOBIAS SENIOR PARALEGAL TOBIAS LAW OFFICE AT&T CALIFORNIA 460 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE 525 MARKET STREET, 20TH FLR, RM 2023 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA SARAH DEYOUNG WAYLON PICKETT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GROTEFELD & HOFFMAN LLP CALTEL 505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE CALIFORNIA ST., STE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA HILARY CORRIGAN CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS 425 DIVISADERO ST. STE DIVISADERO STREET, SUITE 303 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA REGULATORY FILE ROOM CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 425 DIVISADERO STREET, SUITE 303 PO BOX 7442 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA KATHERINE DONNELLY ROBERT L. DELSMAN CASE ADMINISTRATOR NEXTG NETWORKS, INC. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 1360 GRIZZLY PEAK BLVD. PO BOX , MC B9A BERKELEY, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177

21 CPUC - Service Lists - I Page 5 of 6 12/5/2011 CATHIE ALLEN HEIDE CASWELL PACIFICORP PACIFICORP 825 NE MULTNOMAH STREET, SUITE NE MULTNOMAH STREET, SUITE 1500 PORTLAND, OR PORTLAND, OR State Service FADI DAYE KAN WAI TONG UTILITIES SAFETY AND RELIABILITY BRANCH UTILITIES SAFETY AND RELIABILITY BRANCH 320 West 4th Street Suite West 4th Street Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA MICHAEL ROBERTSON RAFFY STEPANIAN UTILITIES SAFETY AND RELIABILITY BRANCH UTILITIES SAFETY AND RELIABILITY BRANCH 320 West 4th Street Suite West 4th Street Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles, CA RAYMOND G. FUGERE HARVEY Y. MORRIS UTILITIES SAFETY AND RELIABILITY BRANCH LEGAL DIVISION 320 West 4th Street Suite 500 ROOM 5036 Los Angeles, CA VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA FOR: CPSD JACQUELINE A. REED JULIE HALLIGAN DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION ROOM 5114 ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA LINDA J. WOODS PEJMAN MOSHFEGH UTILITY & PAYPHONE ENFORCEMENT BRANCH UTILITY & PAYPHONE ENFORCEMENT BRANCH AREA 2-A AREA 2-E 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA RAHMON MOMOH ROBERT ELLIOTT EXECUTIVE DIVISION INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND PERMITTING B ROOM 5206 AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA ROBERT MASON SEPIDEH KHOSROWJAH LEGAL DIVISION EXECUTIVE DIVISION ROOM 5129 ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE

22 CPUC - Service Lists - I Page 6 of 6 12/5/2011 SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON TIMOTHY KENNEY EXECUTIVE DIVISION DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES AREA ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA TRACI BONE LEGAL DIVISION ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS