The California Public Utilities Commission should deny the petition urging it to rehear its Pacific Gas & Electric bankruptcy reorganization decision, the utility argues. A request for a rehearing of the commission?s decision was made by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, the city and county of San Francisco, the city of Palo Alto, and the Aglet Consumer Alliance. The challengers ?ignore core legal principles, invent new legal principles, ignore volumes of record evidence and attempt to make issues out of non-issues,? PG&E lawyers assert in their February 4 filing. The utility took issue with each of the opponents? claims that the deal is illegal and unjust (<i>Energy Circuit<\/i>, January 23, 2004). It argues the commission?s 3-2 December 18 decision properly binds future commissions because the California Supreme Court upheld its authority to do so when affirming the closed-door deal the commission reached with Southern California Edison involving a post-energy-crisis rate recovery. In addition, contrary to the petitioners? argument that the commission cannot be put under the thumb of the bankruptcy court, PG&E asserts the CPUC ?<i>must<\/i> submit to Bankruptcy Court supervision and enforcement of the plan? (emphasis in original). PG&E also claims the decision, which was partly the product of an 11th-hour deal between it and The Utility Reform Network, is not procedurally flawed and the plan opponents fail to appreciate the ?unique nature of this proceeding.? The issue that the commission had to decide, according to PG&E, was ?whether to enter into a voluntary settlement with PG&E in a federal proceeding...the Commission?s task was <i>not<\/i> to determine what it believed to be the optimum outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding? (emphasis in original).