A.11-03-015, et al. L/cdl
disagreement or strong concern.” And the rehearing applicati
ons do no more than restatevarious recommendations CEP proposed during the proceedings.Rehearing applications are not a proper vehicle to merely reargue positionstaken during a Commission proceeding. Further, the rehearing applications fail becausethey do not comply with the statutory requirement under Public Utilities Code section1732. Section 1732 states:The application for rehearing
shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds
on which the applicant considers thedecision or order
to be unlawful
(Pub. Util. Code, § 1732.)Even if we were
inclined to consider the rehearing applications, CEP’s
objections are flawed and without merit for the reasons briefly discussed below.
Health and Safety Issues
Virtually every issue CEP raises stems from
fundamental concernregarding the health and safety impacts of RF transmissions attendant to wirelessSmartMeter technology. To the extent that issue was relevant at all, it was at the time of the original decisions approving deployment of the utility AMI Programs. However,those decisions are now final and not subject to challenge pursuant to Public UtilitiesCode sections 1709 and 1732(b).
As we explained in D.12-04-018 and D.12-04-019, any alleged negativehealth effects of SmartMeters was outside the scope of these proceedings because it wasnot material to determining what opt-out option (non RF emitting meter) should beapproved.
Thus, CEP’s challenges are without merit.
Pub. Util. Code §
1709 [“In all collateral actions or proceedings, the orders and decisions of thecommission which have become final shall be conclusive.”]; Pub. Util. Code § 1731, subd. (b) [Challenge
required within 30 days of a decision.]. (See also
Coast Truck Line v. Asbury Truck Company
(1933) 218Cal. 337, 340.). All subsequent section references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise stated.
CEP also alleges that the Commission wrongly denied the Motion of Southern Californians for WiredSolutions to Smart Meters
(“SCWSSM”) to ask the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) to
review the health effects of SmartMeters. (CEP 5/22 Rhg. App., at p. 14; CEP 5/24 Rhg. App., at p. 12.)This allegation is without merit. Because alleged SmartMeter health effects issues were beyond the scopeof the proceedings, CDPH participation and review was not warranted. (D.12-04-018, at pp. 21-23;
(footnote continued on next page)