BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Investigation into the Ratemaking implications for Pacific Gas and Electric Company pursuant to the Commission’s Alternative Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 Of the Bankruptcy Code for PG&E, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. In re: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 01-30923 DM

FILED PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION APRIL 22, 2003 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATION 02-04-026

REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE

ON THE ORDER INSTITUTING INVESTIGATION RATEMAKING IMPLICATIONS FOR PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE CONFIRMATION OF PG&E’S PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) reviewed the Proposed Settlement (PSA) and question the absence of lands surrounding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant for the potential imposition of conservation easements in the PSA. Potential imposition of conservation easements for lands surrounding hydro plants is included in the Proposed Settlement. Potential imposition of conservation easements for lands in the Carizzo plains is included in the Proposed Settlement. And yet, even though PG&E was willing to provide a conservation easement in a recent unsuccessful Regional Water Quality Board Proposed Settlement, such an easement is missing in the Proposed Settlement in OII 02-04-026.

The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace filed seven Data Requests (attached) to PG&E attempting to ascertain the following:

1) How many acres of land does PG&E own surrounding its Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant? 2) What does PG&E estimate is the value of the land it owns surrounding Diablo Canyon? 3) Why didn’t the Proposed Settlement Agreement include lands surrounding Diablo Canyon for the imposition of conservation easement? 4) Why didn’t the Proposed Settlement Agreement include lands surrounding Diablo Canyon for the potential transfer in fee to “one or more public entities or qualified non-profit conservation organizations? 5) Who (name & title) at PG&E made the decision to include the Carizzo Plains? 6) Who (name & title) at PG&E has the authority to make a similar decision re: potential imposition of conservation easements at Diablo Canyon? The only question PG&E answered was if the PG&E Board of Directors has approved the proposed easement for the Carizzo Plains. The answer was “No”.

The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace believes that lands surrounding Diablo Canyon should have been considered in settlement negotiations, especially when land easements for this land had recently been considered in recent settlement proceedings at the Regional Water Quality Control Board. PG&E’s refusal to answer the questions of the SLOMFP is unacceptable and the Commission should require the utility to explain why Diablo lands were not discussed as part of the Proposed Settlement. Furthermore, the SLOMFP believe that the Commission should include lands at Diablo Canyon as an inseparable component of any final Agreement regarding PG&E’s Plan of Reorganization.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rochelle Becker September 8, 2003 San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document entitled Rebuttal Testimony of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace in OII Plan of Reorganization 02-04-026, electronically on all parties of record.

Dated September 8, 2003

Rochelle Becker