|
Number of Documents: 165
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 14, 2006
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Reply; on Proposed Decision of ALJ Malcolm.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 14, 2006
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply; on Proposed Decision and on Proposed Alternate Decision concerning
Winter 2006-2007 Core Gas Hedging Plan.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 14, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply; on Proposed Decision of ALJ Malcolm and on Proposed Alternate Decision
of President Peevey.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 14, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply; on Proposed Decision of ALJ Malcolm and on Proposed Alternate Decision
of President Peevey.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 7, 2006
|
Filed By:
DRA/RASHID/CPUC
|
|
Description:
on the Proposed Decision of ALJ Malcom and the Proposed Alternate Decision of
President Peevey.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 7, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on Proposed Decision of ALJ Malcolm and the Proposed Alternate Decision of
President Peevey.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 7, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
supporting the Alternate Proposed Decision of President Peevey and Opposing the
Proposed Decision of ALJ Malcolm.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
August 1, 2006
|
Filed By:
ABAG PUBLICLY OWNED ENERGY RESOURCES
SCHOOL PROJECT FOR UTILITY RATE REDUCTION
|
|
Description:
Joint; on Proposed Decision and Alternate Proposed Decision.
|
|
|
Type:
ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
July 18, 2006
|
Filed By:
CMMR/PEEVEY/CPUC
|
|
Description:
Proposed Decision of President Peevey. Comments are due no later than 08/07/06;
Reply Comments are due 5 days thereafter.
|
|
|
Type:
PROPOSED DECISION
|
Filing Date:
July 18, 2006
|
Filed By:
ALJ/MALCOLM/CPUC
|
|
Description:
OPINION MODIFYING DECISION (D.) 05-10-043, D.05-10-015, D.04-01-047; Comments
are due no later than 08/07/06; Reply Comments are due 5 days thereafter.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 30, 2006
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
reply; addressing utility proposals for hedging core gas purchases for the
winter of 2006-07. Confidential Appendix A submitted under seal pursuant to the
protective order granted by ALJ Weissman at the September 16, 2005 Prehearing
Conference.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 30, 2006
|
Filed By:
ABAG PUBLICLY OWNED ENERGY RESOURCES
SCHOOL PROJECT FOR UTILITY RATE REDUCTION
|
|
Description:
Joint, Reply; RE: PG&E, SoCal Gas and SDG&E Petitions for Authority to be
relieved of Risk from Natural Gas Hedging Purchases.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 30, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply;
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 30, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply (PUBLIC & CONFIDENTIAL VERSIONS) re: Extension of its Current Hedging
Authorization through the 2006-2007 Winter.
|
|
|
Type:
TRANSCRIPT
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
REPORTING DIVISION
|
|
Description:
Submitted; Volume 12, plus 4 sealed envelopes.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
ABAG PUBLICLY OWNED ENERGY RESOURCES
THE SCHOOL PROJECT FOR UTILITY RATE REDUCTION
|
|
Description:
Joint;
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
[PUBLIC VERSION] opening; addressing utility proposals for hedging core gas
purchases for the winter of 2006-07. [CONFIDENTIAL Appendix A submitted under
seal pursuant to the PROTECTIVE ORDER granted by ALJ Weissman at the September
16, 2005 prehearing conference].
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
DRA/RASHID/PUC
|
|
Description:
motion to file under seal; Confidential OPENING BRIEF regarding the emergency
petition of SoCalGas for further modification of D02-06-023, for modification
of D05-10-043, and request for expedited treatment SUBMITTED AND FILED UNDER
SEAL.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
CORAL ENERGY RESOURCES, L.P.
|
|
Description:
Concurrent Opening
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Opening; re; Extension of its current hedging authorization through the
2006-2007 Winter.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Opening; re: Emergency Petition for Further Modification of D.02-06-023, for
Modification of D.05-10-043 and Request for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
June 1, 2006
|
Filed By:
CALJ/MINKIN/PUC
|
|
Description:
of co-assignment.
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
May 30, 2006
|
Filed By:
ALJ/MALCOLM/PUC
|
|
Description:
Grants PG&E, SoCal, and SDG&E's motions to file under seal. Denies PG&E, SoCal,
and SDG&E's motions for protective order. Denies PG&E, SDG&E, and SoCal's
requests to shorten time to respond to their petitions for modification. Sets
an evidentiary hearing for June 9, 2006.
|
|
|
Type:
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
|
Filing Date:
May 18, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
(PUBLIC VERSION) Emergency; for Further Modification of Decision 02-06-023; for
Modification of Decision 05-10-043; and Request for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
May 18, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Emergency Motion for Authority to File and Maintain Confidential, Commercially
Sensitive, Proprietary Information Under Seal, namely, Addendum A to the
Emergency Petitions for Modification filed concurrently herewith; and Request
for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
May 18, 2006
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Motion for Adoption of Protective Order and Shortening Time for Responses.
|
|
|
Type:
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
(PUBLIC VERSION) Emergency; for Further Modification of Decision 03-07-037; for
Modification of Decision 05-10-043; and Request for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Motion for Adoption of Protective Order and Shortening Time for Responses.
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2006
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Emergency Motion for Authority to File and Maintain Confidential, Commercially
Sensitive, Proprietary Information Under Seal, namely, Addendum to the
Emergency Petitions for Modification filed concurrently herewith; and Request
for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
REPLY
|
Filing Date:
October 25, 2005
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
to Response to October 11, 2005 Emergency Petition of SoCal Gas and SDG&E.
|
|
|
Type:
REPLY
|
Filing Date:
October 25, 2005
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Response to Emergency Petition for Modification of Decision 02-06-023 and
Decision 03-07-037.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
October 19, 2005
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
to the emergency petition of the Sempra Utilities for modification of
D02-06-023 and D03-07-037.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
October 19, 2005
|
Filed By:
ORA/TUDISCO/PUC
|
|
Description:
opening; to the emergency petition of SoCalGas and SDG&E for modification of
D02-06-023 and D03-07-037, etc.
|
|
|
Type:
OPPOSITION
|
Filing Date:
October 19, 2005
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to the Emergency Petition of SoCal Gas and SDG&E for Modification of Decision
02-06-023 and Decision 03-07-037; and request for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
October 18, 2005
|
Filed By:
ALJ/WONG/PUC
|
|
Description:
Regarding October 11, 2005 Emergency Petition of SoCalGas and SDG&E. Grants the
request of SoCalGas and SDG&E for expedited treatment, as set forth. Responses
to the October 11, 2005 Petition are due by October 19, 2005. Any interested
party can file a reply to responses by October 24, 2005. Grants the October 11,
2005 motion to file under seal and adopts the protective order. Grants the
October 11, 2005 motion to modify the protective order.
|
|
|
Type:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
|
Filing Date:
October 14, 2005
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of Emergency Petition for Modification of D.02-06-023 and D.03-07-037 & related
documents.
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
October 11, 2005
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for Order modifying Protective Order and for Order Shortening Time to Respond.
|
|
|
Type:
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
|
Filing Date:
October 11, 2005
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Emergency Petition for Modification of Decision 02-06-023 and Decision
03-07-037, and Request for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
October 11, 2005
|
Filed By:
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
For Authority to File and Maintain Confidential, Commercially Sensitive,
Proprietary Information Under Seal and Request for Expedited Treatment.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
October 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply; on the Draft Decision.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
October 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply; on Draft Decision denying Petition for Modification.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
October 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Joint Comments on Draft Decision of ALJ Walker Denying Petition For Modification
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
October 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On the Draft Decision
|
|
|
Type:
DRAFT DECISION
|
Filing Date:
September 19, 2002
|
Filed By:
ALJ/WALKER/PUC
|
|
Description:
[Opinion Denying Petition For Modification] mailed 9/19/2002 (Comments are due
by 10/9/2002; reply comments due 5 days after comments are filed. Opening
comments shall not exceed 15 pages.)
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
August 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Petition for Modification of D.02-06-023.
|
|
|
Type:
REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
August 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Request for compensation for substantial contribution to Decision 02-06-023
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
July 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Application for Rehearing.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
July 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
to the Application for Rehearing of D02-06-023 by Southern California Edison
Company.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
July 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
to Edison's Application for Rehearing of D02-06-023.
|
|
|
Type:
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
|
Filing Date:
July 10, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D02-06-023
|
|
|
Type:
REHEARING REQUEST
|
Filing Date:
July 10, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of D02-06-023 (public version)
|
|
|
Type:
MISCELLANEOUS FILING
|
Filing Date:
July 10, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Protected Version of Application for Rehearing of D02-06-023 Attached and Filed
Under Seal (Leave to file confidential information under seal granted by ALJ
Walker).
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 12, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
LATE FILED. On June 5, 2002, Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory
Operations of Southern California Edison Company (Edison), contacted Belinda
Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Kevin Coughlan, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Laura
Krannawitter and Lynne McGhee, advisors to Cmmr. Duque, and Trina Horner,
advisor to Cmmr. Lynch via five separate telephone calls. Foster stated that
any order instituting investigation issued in connection with the Gas Cost
Incentive Mechanism decision should clearly state that Edison, as well as other
parties, has full discovery rights.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 7, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
On June 7, 2002, Mark Pocta of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) met with
Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Also present were Belinda Gatti, advisor to
Cmmr. Brown, and Marcel Hawiger, staff attorney of The Utility Reform Network.
Pocta addressed the reasons that ORA agreed to the - 10 Bcf downward tolerance
for storage inventory and the concerns with a strict 70 Bcf. Pocta stated that
the strict inventory unnecessarily constraints Southern California Gas
Company's flexibility and requires that storage injections be maximized. Pocta
added that if the Commission was interested in investigating the reasons for
high California border prices then a statewide investigation was more
appropriate than an investigation focused only on SoCalGas. Pocta noted that
the proposed decision is a better structure for making any changes because it
more accurately reflects the record evidence.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 7, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On June 4, 2002, Judy Peck, Sempra Utilities Regulatory Relations Manager, on
behalf of Southern California Gas Company, spoke by telephone with Belinda
Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown. In the conversation, Peck reminded that the
letter sent on May 15th by the settlement parties to the Commission outlined
the minimum requirements necessary to preserve the settlement. Peck also
pointed out that the second issue in that letter included language suggesting
that any investigation should be conducted through a statewide order
instituting investigation or the settlement would be in jeopardy.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 5, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 31, 2002, Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory Operations of
Southern California Edison Company (Edison), contacted Belinda Gatti, advisor
to Cmmr. Brown, by telephone. Foster stated that any investigation issued in
conjunction with the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism decision could be limited to
transportation, hub services, and activities affecting the Southern California
gas market and that it would not be necessary to order a statewide
investigation. Foster indicated that increases in the price of gas at the
California border contributed to increased electric generation costs that added
to the costs paid to the qualifying facilities during the last quarter of 2000
and the first quarter of 2001.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALFIORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 30, Judy Peck, Sempra Utilities Regulatory Relations Manager, spoke by
telephone with Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown. Jim Harrigan, Vice
President of Gas Acquisition of Southern California Gas Company, also
participated in the communication. Peck stated that any investigation that the
Commission initiated should be broad enough to consider all market forces
taking place during the period of price spikes in the California natural gas
market. Harrigan sited a number of factors that could have contributed to the
high natural gas prices.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
June 4, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 30, 2002, Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory Operations,
Southern California Edison Company, contacted Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr.
Duque, by telephone. Foster stated that any investigation issued in
conjunction with the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism decision could be limited to
transportation, hub services, and activities affecting the Southern California
gas market. Foster stated also that increases in the price of gas at the
California border contributed to increased electric generation costs that added
to the costs paid to the qualifying facilities during the last quarter of 2000
and the first quarter of 2001.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 31, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 28, Leslie Katz, Regional Vice President of Sempra Utilities met on
behalf of Southern California Gas Company with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco.
Also present were Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, and Bill Reed, Senior
Vice President, and James Harrigan, Vice President, for SoCalGas. Written
materials (attached to the notice) were used. Katz stated that SoCalGas
supports the proposed. Harrigan noted that a storage target range of plus or
minus 5 Bcf would be acceptable. Harrigan stressed that flexibility is
essential to minimize costs and maximize efficiency in procuring natural gas
supplies given the uncertainty of factors, such as weather, that are beyond the
control of Gas Acquisition. Reed emphasized that any investigation should look
at the market, not the gas cost incentive mechanism. Harrigan explained that
SoCalGas provides confidential information regarding its transactions to the
Energy Division and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 28, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 23, 2002, Brian Cherry, Chief of Regulatory Relations of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), met with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, and
Manuel Ramirez, advisor to Cmmr. Wood, in two separate meetings in San
Francisco. Also present was Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs
for Southern California Edison Company. Cherry stated that Cmmr. Duque's
proposal for a statewide investigation into market power was unnecessary, and
would not likely result in a remedy to the allegations raised in the Gas Cost
Incentive Mechanism proceeding. Cherry stated that any new investigation
should focus on resolving the market power allegations that may have occurred
in Southern California.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 24, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 21, 2002, Brian Cherry, Chief of Regulatory Relations of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), met with Steve Weissman, advisor to Cmmr. Wood, Cmmr.
Peevey, and Laura Krannawitter, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, in three separate
meetings in San Francisco. At the meeting with Cmmr. Peevey also present was
Kevin Coughlan, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey. Bruce Foster, Vice President of
Regulatory Affairs for Southern California Edison Company, participated in the
meetings with Cmmr. Peevey and Laura Krannawitter. Cherry stated that Cmmr.
Duque's proposal for a statewide investigation into market power was
unnecessary, and would not likely result in a remedy to the allegations raised
in the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism proceeding. Cherry stated that any new
investigation should focus on resolving the market power allegations that may
have occurred in Southern California.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 21, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
THIS IS A CORRECTED NOTICE OF AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS FILED ON APRIL
30, 2002 AND APPEARED IN THE CALENDAR OF MAY 14, 2002. On April 25, 2002,
Douglas Porter, Attorney for Southern California Edison Company (Edison), met
with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, in San Francisco. Also present were
Laura Krannawitter and Lynne McGhee, advisors to Cmmr. Duque, Julie Fitch,
advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Mark Pocta,
Manager, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Brian Prusnek of the Energy Division,
John Hughes, Manager, Regulatory Affairs of Edison, and Paul Carpenter of The
Brattle Group. Written handout (attached to the notice) was used. Porter and
Carpenter expressed Edison's concern with the proposed decision. Porter
explained that both the existing and proposed modifications to the Gas Cost
Incentive Mechanism under the Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) settlement
permits SoCalGas to include revenues from hub services, sales at the border,
and financial hedging transactions without evaluation of the impact of such
activities on the price of natural gas.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 20, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 15, 2002, Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory Operations for
Southern California Edison Company (Edison), contacted Laura Krannawitter,
advisor to Cmmr. Duque, by telephone. Foster urged the Commission to adopt the
alternate of Cmmr. Lynch. Foster indicated that the alternate would provide in
A01-06-027 a careful review of Southern California Gas Company's provision of
wholesale transactions and the effect of the gas cost incentive mechanism
(GCIM) on electric as well as gas customers. Foster stated that the Commission
should consider further modifications to the GCIM.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 20, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
On May 15, 2002, Marcel Hawiger, staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network
(TURN), had a telephone conversation with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch.
Hawiger stated that TURN found no evidence of manipulation of storage or hub
activities by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) that could have caused
increases in border gas prices. Hawiger stated that SoCalGas' core ratepayers
and shareholders benefited from SoCalGas' hedging program, but that this
hedging activity did not increase border prices. Hawiger stated that TURN did
not oppose investigation of border gas markets but stated that such an
investigation should occur separately from the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism
(GCIM) proceeding. Hawiger expressed concern that the alternate of Cmmr. Lynch
did not resolve the GCIM for Year 7. Hawiger stated that any changes to the
GCIM aside from those in the proposed settlement should be prospective only.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 20, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
LATE FILED. On May 14, 2002, Marcel Hawiger, staff attorney for The Utility
Reform Network (TURN), met with Cmmr. Brown in San Francisco. Belinda Gatti,
advisor to Cmmr. Brown, was present for a portion of the meeting. Hawiger
stated that TURN found no evidence of manipulation of storage or hub activities
by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) that could have caused increases
in border gas prices. Hawiger stated that SoCalGas' core ratepayers and
shareholders benefited from SoCalGas' hedging program, but that this hedging
activity did not increase border prices. Hawiger stated that TURN did not
oppose investigation of border gas markets but stated that such an
investigation should occur separately from the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism
(GCIM) proceeding. Hawiger expressed concern that the alternate of Cmmr. Lynch
did not resolve the GCIM for Year 7. Hawiger stated that any changes to the
GCIM aside from those in the proposed settlement should be prospective only.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 20, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 15, Leslie Katz, Regional Vice President of Sempra Utilities spoke by
telephone on behalf of Southern California Gas Company with Belinda Gatti,
advisor to Cmmr. Brown. Katz referred to the alternate of Cmmr. Lynch and
stated that not only does the alternate alter substantive aspects of the
settlement; it effectively provides no guarantee that the mechanism outlined in
the settlement will be applied to Years 7 and 8. Katz stated that the proposed
decision is a more accurate representation of the facts presented in this
proceeding and should be adopted.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
On May 14, 2002, Mark Pocta, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) Manager,
met with Cmmr. Peevey in San Francisco. Also present were Kevin Coughlan,
advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Marcel Hawiger, staff attorney of The Utility Reform
Network, James Harrigan, Vice President of Gas Acquisition and Jan Van Lierop,
Director of Market Analysis and Planning, for Southern California Gas Company
(SoCalGas), and Bill Reed, Senior Vice President, and Leslie Katz, Regional
Vice President, for Sempra Utilities. Pocta requested the Commission's support
for the proposed decision of the ALJ. Referring to the last paragraph in the
conclusion of the alternate of Cmmr. Lynch, Pocta stated that this approach is
inappropriate. Pocta explained that if Southern California Edison Company
wanted the Commission to conduct an in-depth examination of the high California
border price of gas in 2000/2001, then it should recommend that the Commission
conduct a thorough investigation of all factors and parties.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
On May 14, 2002, Mark Pocta, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) Manager,
met with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, in San Francisco. Also present
were Laura Krannawitter and Lynne McGhee, advisors to Cmmr. Duque, Kevin
Coughlan, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown,
Manuel Ramirez, advisor to Cmmr. Wood, Joyce Alfton of the Energy Division, and
James Harrigan, Jan Van Lierop, June Suwara, John Ellis and Judy Peck from
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Pocta addressed ORA's reasons for
agreeing to the - 10 Bcf downward tolerance for storage inventory and its
concerns with the strict 70 Bcf storage inventory standard set fort in the
alternate of Cmmr. Lynch. Pocta stated that the strict inventory unnecessarily
constrains SoCalGas' flexibility and requires that storage injections be
maximized. Pocta stated further that the alternate misinterpreted the
provision of the settlement agreement which permits the monthly disbursement of
shareholder benefits. Pocta also argued that it is not appropriate to utilize
the gas cost incentive mechanism proceeding as a vehicle to investigate only
one party.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 14, Jan Van Lierop, Director of Market Analysis and Planning, Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas), with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch,
in San Francisco. Also present were Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown,
Laura Krannawitter and Lynne McGhee, advisors to Cmmr. Duque, Kevin Coughlan,
advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Manuel Ramirez, advisor to Cmmr. Wood, Joyce Alfton of
the Energy Division, Judy Peck, Regulatory Relations Manager, and June Suwara,
Case Manager, for Sempra Energy Utilities, John Ellis, Attorney, for Sempra
Energy, James Harrigan, Vice President - Gas Acquisition, for SoCalGas.
Written materials (attached to the notice) were used. Van Lierop noted that
not only does the alternate alter substantive aspects of the settlement; it
effectively provides no guarantee that the mechanism outlined in the settlement
will be applied to Years 7 and 8. Harrigan explained that flexibility is
essential to minimize costs and maximize efficiency in procuring natural gas
supplies. Harrigan stated that SoCalGas' Gas Acquisition Department provided
confidential information regarding its transactions to the Energy Division and
ORA, and that certainty in the rules of the mechanism is essential. Peck
stated that the ALJ's proposed decision should be adopted by the Commission.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 14, 2002, Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory Operations for
Southern California Edison Company (Edison), contacted Kevin Coughlan, advisor
to Cmmr. Peevey, by telephone. Foster urged the Commission to adopt the May 2,
2002 alternate of Cmmr. Lynch. Foster indicated that the alternate's proposal
to take a closer look at the effects of the gas cost incentive mechanism (GCIM)
activities on the entire natural gas markets in A01-06-027 is necessary because
a complete investigation did not take place in the GCIM Year 6 Phase 2
proceeding.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 17, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 14, Bill Reed, Senior Vice President of Sempra Energy Utilities
(Sempra), met, on behalf of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), with
Cmmr. Peevey in San Francisco. Also present were Mark Pocta of the Office of
Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), Marcel Hawiger of The Utility Reform Network, Leslie
Katz, Regional Vice President, and James Harrigan, Vice President, for Sempra,
and Jan Van Lierop, Director of Market Analysis and Planning, for SoCalGas.
Written materials (attached to the notice) were used. Katz noted that not only
does the alternate alter substantive aspects of the settlement; it effectively
provides no guarantee that the mechanism outlined in the settlement will be
applied to Years 7 and 8. Harrigan explained that flexibility is essential to
minimize costs and maximize efficiency in procuring natural gas supplies.
Harrigan stated that SoCalGas' Gas Acquisition Department provided confidential
information regarding its transactions to the Energy Division and ORA, and that
certainty in the rules of the mechanism is essential. Reed stated that the
ALJ's proposed decision should be adopted without modification.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 14, 2002
|
Filed By:
EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision of Cmmr. Lynch
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 14, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
LATE FILED. On April 9, 2002, Douglas Porter, Attorney for Southern California
Edison Company (Edison), met with Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, in San
Francisco. Also present were John Hughes, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, of
Edison, and Paul Carpenter of The Brattle Group. Porter urged the Commission
to adopt the alternate of Cmmr. Lynch. Edison representatives stated that
Edison supports the alternate?s proposal to permit a full investigation of the
effect of the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism on natural gas markets in A01-06-027.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 14, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 14, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision of Commr. Lynch
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 13, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
THIS IS AN AUGMENTED NOTICE OF AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION THAT WAS FILED ON
APRIL 22, 2002 AND APPEARED IN THE CALENDAR OF MAY 6, 2002. On April 17, 2002,
Douglas Porter, Attorney for Southern California Edison Company (Edison),
participated in an all-party meeting before Cmmrs. Duque and Brown in San
Francisco. A list of the attendees is attached to the notice. Written
material (attached to the notice) was used. Porter stated that while Edison
believes that PBR formulas should replace reasonableness reviews, Edison was
concerned with the inclusion in the GCIM factors not related to procurement of
natural gas for core customers. Porter explained that both the existing and
proposed modifications to the GCIM under the Southern California Gas (SoCalGas)
settlement permits SoCalGas to include revenues from hub services and financial
hedging transactions without evaluation of the impact of such activities on the
price of natural gas.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 10, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 7, Judy Peck, Sempra Utilities Regulatory Relations Manager, had two
telephone communications on behalf of Southern California Gas Company with
Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, and with Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr.
Brown. Peck stated that the alternate issued by Cmmr. Lynch would result in no
settlement being adopted. Peck explained that not only the alternate alter
substantive aspects of the settlements, it effectively provides no guarantee
that the mechanism outlined in the settlement will be applied to Years 7 and 8.
Referring to the alternate, Peck pointed out that if further investigation is
ordered, then it should be limited in scope to issues not already heard in this
proceeding.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
Comments on the Alternate Proposed Decision of Cmmr. Lynch
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
In support of Alternate Proposed Decision of Commr. Lynch
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
on Alternate Propsoed Decision of Commr. Lynch
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On Alternate Proposed Decision
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS ON ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 9, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision of Cmmr. Lynch
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 6, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On May 1, 2002, William Stock, Chief of Regulatory Relations of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), met with Laura Krannawitter, advisor to Cmmr. Duque,
in San Francisco. Also present were Lynne McGhee, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, and
Joseph Henri, Director of Utility Electric Portfolio Management, and Mark
Huffman, Attorney, for PG&E. Stock outlined a number of changes that have
occurred in the procurement market and noted the importance of establishing
reasonable up-front standards. Stock stated it is imperative that PG&E be
returned to investment grade status prior to engaging in energy procurement
activities. Henri outlined the customers? current net open position,
suppliers? heightened need for investment quality counter-parties, the type of
reasonableness standards available, and the type of energy transactions that
are needed to cover the net open portions.
|
|
|
Type:
ALTERNATE
|
Filing Date:
May 2, 2002
|
Filed By:
CMMR/LYNCH/PUC
|
|
Description:
Alternate Proposed Decision mailed 5/2/2002 (Comments are due by 5/9/2002;
reply comments due by noon 5/14/2002)
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
On April 26, 2002, Norman Pedersen, on behalf of Southern California Generation
Coalition (SoCalGen), participated in an all-party meeting with Cmmr. Lynch in
San Francisco. Also present were Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, Belinda
Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Laura Krannawitter, advisor to Cmmr. Duque,
Joyce Alfton of the Energy Division, Mark Pocta, Jacki Greig and Ramesh
Ramchandani of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Paul Carpenter, Douglas
Porter and John Hughes for Southern California Edison Company, Salle Yoo for El
Paso Natural Gas Company, Jan Van Lierop, Jim Harrigan, Lee Schavrien and
Leslie Katz for Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Brian Cherry and
Bill Stock for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Mike Florio for The
Utility Reform Network. Pedersen explained that SoCalGen supports continuation
of a Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism, with modifications and that SoCalGen would
support the Settlement if it were modified to contain the provisions
recommended by SoCalGen. Pedersen recommended various revisions to the
Settlement.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On April 26, 2002, Lee Schavrien, Vice President ? Regulatory Affairs, Sempra
Utilities, participated on behalf of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)
in an all party meeting with Cmmr. Lynch in San Francisco. Also present were
Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown,
Laura Krannawitter, advisor to Cmmr. Duque, Jacki Greig and Joyce Alfton of the
Energy Division, Mark Pocta and Ramesh Ramchandani of the Office of Ratepayer
Advocates (ORA), Jim Harrigan and Jan Van Lierop for SoCalGas, Leslie Katz for
Sempra Utilities, Mark Florio of The Utility Reform Network, Brain Cherry and
Bill Stock of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, John Hughes, Douglas Porter
and Paul Carpenter of The Brattle Group for the Southern California Edison
Company (Edison), Norm Pederson for Southern California Generation Coalition,
and Salle Yoo for El Paso Natural Gas. Schavrien stated that the settlement
was reached as a result of a thorough evaluation of SoCalGas? Gas Cost
Incentive Mechanism program and explained that Edison?s opposition to the
settlement was correctly dismissed by the proposed decision. Harrigan noted
that the settlement more clearly defines storage targets. Harrigan explained
that SoCalGas communicates openly with the ORA and the Energy Division about
its transactions under appropriate confidentiality provisions.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
GREENLINING INSTITUTE
|
|
Description:
On May 1, 2002, Robert Gnaizda, General Counsel and Policy Director of the
Greenlining Institute, met with Cmmr. Peevey in San Francisco; and, on the same
day, sent a letter (attached to the notice) to Cmmrs. Lynch, Duque, Brown,
Peevey and Wood. Gnaizda stated that, like Worldcom, Qwest?s financial
condition is precarious and that the Commission should hold a hearing to
determine whether Qwest should post a bond to ensure payment of future fines
and fees.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On April 26, 2002, Douglas Porter, Attorney for Southern California Edison
Company (Edison), participated in an all-party meeting with Cmmr. Lynch in San
Francisco. Also present were John Hughes, Manager, Regulatory Affairs of
Edison, Paul Carpenter of The Brattle Group, and other attendees listed on the
attachment to the notice. Porter and Carpenter expressed Edison?s concern with
the proposed decision. Porter explained that both the existing and proposed
modifications to the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism under the Southern California
Gas (SoCalGas) settlement permits SoCalGas to include revenues from hub
services, sales at the border, and financial hedging transactions without
evaluation of the impact of such activities on the price of natural gas.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
May 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On April 26, 2002, Brian Cherry, Chief of Regulatory Relations of Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E), attended an all-party meeting with Cmmr. Lynch in
San Francisco. Also present were Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, William
Stock, Chief of Regulatory Relations of PG&E, and other attendees listed on the
attachment to the notice. Cherry stated that the commodity incentive
mechanisms encourage utilities to procure the low cost gas supplies. Cherry
also noted that when utilities follow the rules and achieve significant
savings, they should not be required to allocate those savings differently from
the manner prescribed by the mechanism. Cherry also stated that changes to the
mechanism should be prospective, not retrospective.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 30, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On April 25, 2002, Douglas Porter, Attorney for Southern California Edison
Company (Edison), met with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, in San
Francisco. Also present were Laura Krannawitter and Lynne McGhee, advisors to
Cmmr. Duque, Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Belinda Gatti, advisor to
Cmmr. Brown, Mark Pocta, Manager, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Brian Prusnek
of the Energy Division, John Hughes, Manager, Regulatory Affairs of Edison, and
Paul Carpenter of The Brattle Group. Written material (attached to the notice)
was used. Porter and Carpenter expressed Edison?s concern with the proposed
decision. Porter explained that both the existing and proposed modifications
to the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism under the Southern California Gas
(SoCalGas) settlement permits SoCalGas to include revenues from hub services,
sales at the border, and financial hedging transactions without evaluation of
the impact of such activities on the price of natural gas.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 30, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: On April 25, 2002, Bill Reed, Senior Vice President of Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas), met with Cmmr. Peevey in San Francisco.
Also present were Mark Pocta of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Leslie Katz,
Regional Vice President of SoCalGas, Jim Harrigan, Vice President of Sempra
Energy Utilities, and Marcel Hawiger of The Utility Reform Network. Written
material (attached to the notice) was used. Reed recommended that the proposed
decision (PD) be adopted without modification. Reed emphasized that incentive
mechanisms that align customers and shareholders? interests lead to better
results. Reed also explained that Edison?s opposition to the settlement
agreement was correctly dismissed by the PD. Harrigan noted that the hub loans
were voluntary and done at the request of customers. Harrigan added that
SoCalGas had nominated 98% of its interstate capacity to bring gas to
California. Katz noted that the market power allegations had been the subject
of extensive testimony. Harrigan stated that GCIM authorizes SoCalGas? Gas
Acquisition Department to utilize rights assigned to and paid for by SoCalGas?
core customers and that the core uses only those rights.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 30, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/CPUC
|
|
Description:
Summary: On April 25, 2002, Mark Pocta, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates
(ORA) Manager, met with Trina Horner, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch, in San Francisco.
Also present were Laura Krannawitter and Lynne McGhee, advisors to Cmmr. Duque,
Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown,
Brian Prusnek of the Energy Division, and Paul Carpenter, Doug Porter and John
Hughes of Southern California Edison Company (SCE). Pocta clarified that
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) had physical gas of about 59 BCF in
its storage facility on November 1, 2000, which is equal to 85% of the total
core inventory and that the addition of hub loans put core storage close to
100% full with about 68.5 BCF of core storage. Pocta stated that the noncore
had about 3 BCF of physical storage gas in inventory. Pocta stated that
SoCalGas was making hub loans during the same time period that certain portions
of the state were experiencing electric blackouts. Pocta stated that these hub
loans may have provided the gas necessary by the market to avoid more
widespread electricity storages. Pocta stated SoCalGas? actions were rational
given the demand and other factors such as gas price backwardation that existed
in the gas market at the time.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 29, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/CPUC
|
|
Description:
Summary: On April 26, 2002, Mark Pocta, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates
(ORA) Manager, attended an all-party meeting with Cmmr. Lynch in San Francisco.
Also present were other attendees listed on the attachment to the notice.
Pocta noted that the current Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism was intended to
replace reasonableness review that gave the utilities an improper incentive to
avoid disallowances as opposed to reducing gas costs. Pocta also explained how
the Settlement results in ratepayers retaining a greater share of the savings.
Pocta noted that the Settlement addresses market volatility by capping the
shareholder reward at 1.5% of total gas costs. Pocta stated further that the
settlement incorporates appropriate firm storage targets for Southern
California Gas Company. Pocta explained that Southern California Edison
Company?s recommendation that the benchmark be limited to only gas costs would
hinder the utility?s ability to hedge gas costs and utilize all available gas
methods to reduce core gas costs, and would result in a return to
reasonableness reviews.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 29, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/CPUC
|
|
Description:
Summary: LATE FILED. On April 17, 2002, Mark Pocta, the Office of Ratepayer
Advocates (ORA) Manager, met with Cmmr. Peevey in San Francisco. Also present
were Patrick Gileau, staff counsel for ORA, Marcel Hawiger for The Utility
Reform Network (TURN), and Bill Reed, Jim Harrigan and Leslie Katz, for
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Written material (attached to the
notice) was used. Pocta noted that the current Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism
was intended to replace reasonableness reviews that gave the utilities an
improper incentive to avoid disallowances as opposed to reducing gas costs.
Pocta also explained how the Settlement results in ratepayers retaining a
greater share of the savings. Pocta noted that the Settlement addresses market
volatility by capping the shareholder reward at 1.5% of total gas costs. Pocta
noted that Southern California Edison Company?s recommendation that the
benchmark be limited to only gas costs would hinder the utility?s ability to
hedge gas costs and would result in a return to reasonableness reviews.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
LATE FILED. On April 17, 2002, Marcel Hawiger, staff attorney for The Utility
Reform Network (TURN), met with Cmmrs. Duque and Brown in an all-party meeting
in San Francisco. Also present were Laura Krannawitter, advisor to Cmmr.
Duque, Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr.
Peevey, Linda Serizawa and Steven Weissman, advisors to Cmmr. Wood, Richard
Myers, Joyce Alfton, and Brian Prusnek of the Energy Division, Mark Pocta and
Patrick Gileau of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Lee Schavrien and John
Ellis of Sempra Energy, June Suwara and Judy Peck of Sempra Utilities, Jim
Harrigan of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Brian Cherry of Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, Douglas Porter and John Hughes of Southern California
Edison Company (Edison), and Ed O?Neill for El Paso Natural Gas. Written
material (attached to the notice) was used. Hawiger stated that TURN supported
the proposed decision. Hawiger noted that SoCalGas? Gas Cost Incentive
Mechanism (GCIM) was successful in optimizing assets and reducing gas costs.
Hawiger stated that the changes to the GCIM in the settlement would promote
reliability and reduce shareholder benefits from volatility. Hawiger explained
that Edison?s arguments were incorrect.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On April 22, 2002, Douglas Porter, Attorney for Southern California Edison
Company (Edison), met with Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr. Peevey, in San
Francisco. Also present was John Hughes, Manager, Regulatory Affairs of
Edison. Written material (attached to the notice) was used. Porter stated
Edison?s concerns with the proposed decision. Porter explained that both the
existing and proposed modifications to the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism under
the Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) settlement permits SoCalGas to include
revenues from hub services, sales at the border, and financial hedging
transactions without evaluation of the impact of such activities on the price
of natural gas.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 22, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
AUGMENTATION REQUIRED. On April 17, 2002, Douglas Porter, Attorney for
Southern California Edison Company (Edison), participated in an all-party
meeting before Cmmrs. Duque and Brown. A list of the attendees is attached to
the notice. Written material (attached to the notice) was used. Porter stated
that while Edison believes that PBR formulas should replace reasonableness
reviews, Edison was concerned with the inclusion in the GCIM factors not
related to procurement of natural gas for core customers. Porter explained
that both the existing and proposed modifications to the GCIM under the
Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) settlement permits SoCalGas to include
revenues from hub services and financial hedging transactions without
evaluation of the impact of such activities on the price of natural gas.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 22, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: On April 17, 2002, Lee Schavrien, Vice President-Regulatory Affairs,
Sempra Energy (Sempra), on behalf of Southern California Gas Company
(SoCalGas), participated in an all-party meeting before Cmmrs. Duque and Brown
in San Francisco. Also present were Laura Krannawitter, advisor to Cmmr.
Duque, Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr.
Peevey, Linda Serizawa and Steve Weissman, advisors to Cmmr. Wood, Richard
Myers, Joyce Alfton and Brian Prusnek of the Energy Division, Mark Pocta and
Patrick Gileau of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Jim Harrigan, SoCalGas,
John Ellis and Judy Peck of Sempra, June Suwara of Sempra Utilities, Brian
Cherry of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Marcel Hawiger of The Utility
Reform Network, Douglas Porter and John Hughes of Southern California Edison
Company (Edison), and Ed O?Neill for El Paso Natural Gas. Schavrien
recommended that the proposed decision (PD) be adopted without modification.
Schavrien stated that the settlement parties support the PD as it reflects a
careful, thoughtful review of the record. Schavrien also explained that
Edison?s opposition to the settlement agreement was correctly dismissed by the
PD. Ellis and Suwara noted that the market power allegations had been the
subject of extensive testimony in this proceeding. Harrigan stated that the
GCIM authorizes SoCalGas? Gas Acquisition Department to utilize rights assigned
to and paid for by SoCalGas? core customers.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 22, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/CPUC
|
|
Description:
Summary: On April 17, 2002, Mark Pocta, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates
(ORA) Manager, participated in an all-party meeting with Cmmrs. Duque and Brown
in San Francisco. Also present were Patrick Gileau, staff counsel for ORA, and
other attendees listed on the attachment to the notice. Written material
(attached to the notice) was used. Pocta noted the current Gas Cost Incentive
Mechanism (GCIM) was intended to replace reasonableness reviews that gave the
utilities an improper incentive to avoid disallowances as opposed to reducing
gas costs. Pocta also explained that the Settlement would cap the shareholder
reward at 1.5% of total gas costs. Referring to the ORA?s communication with
Southern California Gas Company regarding its gas procurement practices, Pocta
stated that the savings generated during year seven would be impossible without
the GCIM. Gileau rebutted the California Edison Company?s contention that
because of the constrained conditions on the system the return of 11 Bcf in Hub
loans during the winter of 2000/2001 contributed to higher gas prices.
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
April 22, 2002
|
Filed By:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Summary: On April 17, 2002, Brian Cherry, Chief of Regulatory Relations of
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), attended an all-party meeting with
Cmmr. Duque in San Francisco. Also present were other attendees listed on the
attachment to the notice. Cherry stated that the commodity incentive
mechanisms appropriately incite utilities to procure the low cost gas supplies.
However, Cherry also noted, that when utilities follow the rules and achieve
significant savings, they should not be required to reallocate those savings
differently from what is promised under the mechanism. Cherry also stated that
changes to the mechanism should be prospective, not retrospective.
|
|
|
Type:
NOTICE
|
Filing Date:
April 17, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
of Scheduled Individual Ex Parte Communication Meeting.
|
|
|
Type:
REPLY
|
Filing Date:
April 2, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to comments on Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
April 2, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
Reply Comments on the Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
April 2, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Comments on Proposed Decision [Public Version]
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
April 2, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Reply Comments on Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
April 2, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Comments on Proposed Decision [Unredacted Version] (Filing Under Seal ordered
by ALJ Walker)
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
March 28, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On March 26, 2002, Judy Peck, CPUC Administrator of Sempra Energy, met, on
behalf of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), with Belinda Gatti,
advisor to Cmmr. Brown, in San Francisco, and also spoke by telephone with
Aaron Johnson, advisor to Cmmr. Lynch. Peck informed the Commission that
SoCalGas filed joint comments with the other settlement parties and that the
settlement parties support the proposed decision (PD) issued by ALJ Walker as
it reflects a careful, thoughtful review of the record. Peck also noted that
the Southern California Edison's opposition to the Settlement Agreement was
correctly dismissed by the PD.
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
March 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
on Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker
|
|
|
Type:
COMMENTS
|
Filing Date:
March 25, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Joint Comments on Proposed Decision of ALJ Walker
|
|
|
Type:
PROPOSED DECISION
|
Filing Date:
March 5, 2002
|
Filed By:
ALJ/WALKER/PUC
|
|
Description:
mailed 3/5/2002 (Comments are due by 3/25/2002; reply comments due 5 days after
comments are filed. Opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages.)
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
February 27, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On February 22, 2002, Mike Johnson, CA Energy Hub Manager for Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas), met with Aaron Johnson, advisor to Cmmr.
Lynch, in Los Angeles. Also present were Julie Fitch, advisor to Cmmr. Bilas,
Sepideh Khosrowjah of the Strategic Planning Division, Judy Peck and William
Blattner, CPUC Relations Administrators, Ron van der Leeden and June Suwara of
Regulatory Case Management, and Yvonne Gross of Affiliate Affairs, for Sempra
Energy, and Jim Harrigan, Vice President of SoCalGas Acquisition. Written
materials (attached to the notice) were used. Johnson gave a presentation on
HUB Operations. Johnson explained the difference between the 'old' GCIM
mechanism and the 'Agreement in Principle' that is currently being considered
in this proceeding.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
February 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
Reply; pursuant to procedural schedule established by ALJ Walker
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
February 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Reply; in Phase Two of the GCIM Year 6 proceeding
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
February 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply; pursuant to the procedural schedule adopted by ALJ Walker.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
February 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
Reply; pursuant to the procedural schedule adopted by ALJ Walker.
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
February 1, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Reply;
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
January 16, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
Opening Brief
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
January 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
Opening Brief in Phase Two of the GCIM Year 6 Proceeding
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
January 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Opening Brief
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
January 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Initial; [Public Version].
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
January 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Confidential Material Filed Under Seal, Namely, Initial Brief
|
|
|
Type:
BRIEF
|
Filing Date:
January 15, 2002
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
Opening Brief
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
November 5, 2001
|
Filed By:
SEMPRA ENERGY
|
|
Description:
On October 31, 2001, Claudine Swartz, Governmental and Regulatory Affairs
Manager for Sempra Energy (Sempra) met with Julie Halligan, advisor to Cmmr.
Bilas, in San Francisco. Also present was Judy Young, attorney for Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and June Suwara, Regulatory Case
Administrator for Sempra. Young urged the Commission to deny Southern
California Edison Company's appeal of ALJ Walker's ruling regarding the
non-disclosure agreement. Swartz stated that the release of competitive
information would disadvantage SoCalGas
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
November 2, 2001
|
Filed By:
CMMR/BILAS/PUC
|
|
Description:
denying Southern California Edison Company's appeal of ALJ's Ruling
|
|
|
Type:
EXPARTE
|
Filing Date:
October 31, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
On October 26, 2001, Bruce Foster, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for
Southern California Edison Company (Edison), talk to Cmmr. Bilas by telephone.
Douglas Porter, Gloria Ing and Kevin Lipson, Attorneys, Michael Alexander,
Manager of Energy Projects, of Edison, and Matt O'Loughlin of the Brattle Group
also participated in the conversation. Written material (attached to the
notice) was used. Foster and Porter stated that Edison has not been able to
get the discovery relating to Southern California Gas Company's (SoCalGas)
operations necessary to prepare substantive testimony. Foster and Porter
contended that the Commission will not have a firm basis or a complete record
to determine the reasonableness of the revised GCIM formula proposed by
SoCalGas, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
October 29, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Response to Southern California Edison Company's appeal to Assigned
Commissioner of ALJ Walker's 10/11/2001 ruling (filing authorized by ALJ
Walker.)
|
|
|
Type:
APPEAL
|
Filing Date:
October 19, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Appeal to Assigned Commissioner of ALJ Walker's 10/11/2001 ruling (filing
authorized by ALJ Walker.)
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
October 11, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/WALKER/PUC
|
|
Description:
denying SCE's 9/21/2001 discovery motion in part and granting in part. Sets a
new procedural schedule: Nonsettling Parties' testimony - 11/2/2001; Settling
Parties' rebuttal testimony - 11/21; Hearing - 11/27-30.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
October 9, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
to Motion of Edison for Modification of Procedural Schedule
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
October 5, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Motion of [Edison] to Compel SoCal Gas Company to Produce Discovery and for
Order Shortening Time to Respond.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
October 5, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Motion of [Edison] for Modification of Procedural Schedule and for Order
Shortening Time to Respond.
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
September 21, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
for modification of procedural schedule and for Order shortening time to respond
|
|
|
Type:
LAW & MOTION
|
Filing Date:
September 21, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
Motion to compel Southern California Gas Company to produce discovery and for
order shortening time to respond.
|
|
|
Type:
REPLY
|
Filing Date:
August 22, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to responses to Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement. ALJ Walker
telephonically granted SoCal Gas' oral motion for leave to file the Reply one
day late.
|
|
|
Type:
REPLY
|
Filing Date:
August 21, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
to responses to the Joint Motion
|
|
|
Type:
REPLY
|
Filing Date:
August 21, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
|
|
Description:
to responses ot the Joint Motion
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
August 14, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/WALKER/PUC
|
|
Description:
denies Southern California Generation Coalition Motion to Reassign GCIM
Continuation Issue to A.01-06-027 (GCIM Year 7)
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
August 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL GROUP
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS & TECHNOLOG
|
|
Description:
to Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
August 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GENERATION COALITION
|
|
Description:
in Opposition to Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement.
|
|
|
Type:
RESPONSE
|
Filing Date:
August 6, 2001
|
Filed By:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
|
|
Description:
to Joint Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement.
|
|
|
Type:
OPPOSITION
|
Filing Date:
July 10, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
to Southern California Generation Coalition motion to reassign GCIM
continuation issue to A01-06-027
|
|
|
Type:
MOTION
|
Filing Date:
July 5, 2001
|
Filed By:
ORA/GILEAU/PUC
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
|
|
Description:
joint; for adoption of settlement agreement; agreement attached
|
|
|
Type:
RULING
|
Filing Date:
June 26, 2001
|
Filed By:
ALJ/WALKER/PUC
|
|
Description:
modifies procedural schedule as follows: Joint Motion for Adoption of
Settlement - 7/5/2001; Responses to Joint Motion - 8/6; Reply to Responses -
8/21; Testimony of Settling Parties - 9/21; Testimony of Nonsettling Parties -
10/19; Rebuttal Testimony - 11/9; Evidentiary Hearing - 11/27-30.
|
|
|
Type:
|