6. Proposed Settlement Agreement
The joint motion of DRA, GRS, LGS, and PG&E (Settling Parties) requests that the Commission approve the proposed settlement agreement between the Settling Parties (Joint Motion). The proposed settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) contains conditions (Conditions) that the Settling Parties agree should be included, without modification, by the Commission as ordering paragraphs in any decision the Commission issues granting the Applications.
The Joint Motion states that Commission approval of the Settlement Agreement and inclusion of the Conditions in a decision granting the Applications will resolve all issues raised in DRA's and LGS' responses and protest to the Applications (Issues G, M, P, and Q in the Scoping Memo). The Settling Parties request that the Commission adopt all of the Conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and that GRS and PG&E be required to comply with the Conditions, effective upon the Commission's granting of the Applications and issuance of a Commission decision containing such Conditions.
The following describes how the Settlement Agreement resolves parties' initial positions on issues concerning the Applications.
Issue G - Operating and Balancing Agreement, Joint Project Agreement and Operator Agreement
LGS and WGS raised concerns about the relationship between GRS and PG&E, and the potential for undue preference to GRS as compared to other independent storage providers in California and because of the unique circumstances presented by PG&E's ownership interest in the Proposed Project. Much of this concern focused on the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), OA, and OBA that spell out the relationship between GRS and PG&E in connection with the Proposed Project.
The Scoping Memo asks if Applicants' OBA, JPA, and OA should be approved as part of any authority that may be granted to GRS or PG&E in this proceeding, and, if so, if the OBA, JPA and/or OA are reasonable.
GRS and PG&E contend that it is neither appropriate nor necessary for the Commission to approve the JPA and OA. GRS and PG&E state that the JPA relates to the commercial relationship between GRS and PG&E as project owners, and the OA relates to GRS' rights and obligations as operator of the Proposed Project. GRS and PG&E contend that the Commission's approval or disapproval of these agreements would create uncertainty in business transactions underlying the commercial agreements, and might create a barrier to similar projects to the detriment of the state's energy infrastructure, energy consumers, and the economy.
DRA and LGS recommend that, if the Commission deems the JPA and the OA to be appropriate, these agreements should be approved as part of the Commission's decision. DRA and LGS contend that the Commission should approve these agreements because of the unique nature of the partnership between PG&E and GRS, and the different regulations applicable to each entity. DRA recommends that the Commission approve the JPA and OA between GRS and PG&E to ensure Applicants operate their respective portions of the Proposed Project as represented.
LGS states that the Commission must take into account the Proposed Project's effect on competition, protect against undue preference and protect against cross-subsidization from captive ratepayers, and, therefore, recommend that, if appropriate, the JPA, OA, and the OBA be approved as part of the Commission's decision.
The Settlement Agreement states that, because the parties have now had the opportunity to review the complete JPA, OA, and OBA, and because the Conditions, once adopted, provide ongoing protection to other independent storage providers from situations where PG&E could provide preferential treatment to GRS, DRA and LGS no longer seek Commission approval of the JPA, OA, and OBA.
The Settlement Agreement requires Applicants to promptly report and submit to the Commission and the parties to this proceeding copies of any revisions or amendments to the OA, JPA or OBA and related exhibits, and report to the Commission any circumstances in which GRS is allowed to deviate from the OA, JPA or OBA or where discretionary provisions are relied upon to release or modify obligations imposed upon GRS while not releasing or modifying other storage providers' similar obligations.22
In addition, the Settlement Agreement requires PG&E, to the extent that the OBA of GRS or any existing independent storage provider contains, includes or provides treatment that is different from what PG&E offers to any other independent storage provider (including GRS), to provide any existing independent storage provider or GRS the opportunity to amend its OBA to include comparable terms and to provide comparable treatment under such amended terms.23
To address other concerns regarding potential preferential treatment, the Settlement Agreement prohibits PG&E and any entity related to PG&E from providing any undue preference to GRS as compared to any other independent storage providers in terms of pipeline operations, including, but not limited to, balancing, interconnection, access to pipeline facilities, classification of interconnection costs, construction and pricing of interconnection and other facilities, scheduling, curtailment, upgrades and expansions, and application or interpretation of applicable PG&E tariffs and tariff rules.24
Absent prior written consent from the owner of the information, the Settlement Agreement prohibits PG&E or any entity related to PG&E from sharing any information obtained by PG&E in the course of business regarding LGS, WGS or any other independent storage provider in California with GRS or any entity related to GRS unless such information is of a public nature prior to the time of the release. To the extent that any sharing of the information prohibited by this Condition occurs, the Settlement Agreement requires PG&E to promptly report to the Commission the nature of any such sharing.25
The Settlement Agreement also requires PG&E, pursuant to a standing request or an agreement-specific request of any party to this proceeding, to provide copies of any agreements setting forth interconnection arrangements with GRS, including all interconnection agreements, special facilities agreements and other agreements pertinent to the construction and operation of the interconnection between PG&E and GRS or otherwise relating to GRS access to pipeline facilities. To the extent that there are any differences in treatment provided by PG&E to GRS as compared to other independent storage providers, the Settlement Agreement requires PG&E to provide other independent storage providers with the opportunity to receive comparable treatment.26
Upon request by any party to this proceeding, the Settlement Agreement provides that PG&E and the requesting party will make all good faith efforts to resolve issues relating to possible preferential treatment by PG&E of GRS in an expeditious manner, and requires PG&E to provide information reasonably necessary for the requesting party to evaluate whether undue preferential treatment to GRS, as compared to other independent storage providers, is occurring or has occurred.27
The provisions contained in Condition 2 resolve Issue G in the Scoping Memo.
Issues H and M - Is PG&E's proposal to integrate its share of the Proposed Project's capacity into its existing storage operations reasonable? Should PG&E's share of the costs of the Proposed Project be deemed reasonable for inclusion in storage rates developed in a subsequent proceeding?
DRA protested PG&E's Application in order to consider PG&E's proposed rate treatment and structure for its share of the Proposed Project. DRA states that PG&E should not be entitled to a presumption that the full costs of the Project would be deemed reasonable for inclusion in the next Gas Transmission and Storage (GT&S) rate case if the Commission grants PG&E's request for a waiver of a detailed cost showing in this proceeding.
The Scoping Memo asks if PG&E's proposal to integrate its share of the Proposed Project's capacity into its existing storage operations and to use its existing tariffs for natural gas storage services provided from any of its gas storage fields, including the Proposed Project, is reasonable.28 The Scoping Memo also asks whether PG&E's share of the costs of the Proposed Project should be deemed reasonable for inclusion in storage rates developed in a subsequent GT&S rate proceeding, or whether PG&E has the burden of justifying the costs of the Proposed Project sought to be recovered as prudent and reasonable and that PG&E is fully at risk for all costs deemed unreasonable in any subsequent review of PG&E's share of Proposed Project costs.
PG&E currently operates and sells the natural gas storage capacity from its existing three storage fields at McDonald Island, Los Medanos, and Pleasant Creek on an integrated basis without distinguishing between the fields, and does not have separate rates for each of its existing individual fields. PG&E proposes to continue this practice by integrating its share of the Proposed Project capacity into its existing storage operations and using its existing tariffs for natural gas storage services provided from any of its fields, including the Proposed Project.
According to PG&E, the integration of the Proposed Project's storage operations with PG&E's existing fields allows PG&E to operate its storage services efficiently, providing the maximum amount of capacity to the market. PG&E states that it is operating under the terms of a three-year settlement, Gas Accord IV, which established PG&E's gas storage rates for the period 2008 through 2010.
PG&E states that it does not seek any adjustments to its existing rates as a result of placing the Proposed Project into service as part of its existing gas storage portfolio. Instead, PG&E intends to treat the new capacity provided by the Proposed Project for all purposes, including tariffs, the same as PG&E's existing capacity. After the expiration of the existing Gas Accord IV, PG&E will seek to have its rates for gas storage services adjusted in the next GT&S rate case.
The Settlement Agreement provides that PG&E will not seek recovery of any costs associated with the Proposed Project from the rates of its core customers in its 2011 GT&S rate case filed on September 18, 2009, or any other application or advice letter to the Commission which would include such costs prior to the end of the period in which rates determined by the 2011 GT&S rate case are effective.29 This Condition resolves Issue H in the Scoping Memo.
The Settlement Agreement also provides that, to the extent that PG&E subsequently seeks recovery of any costs associated with the Proposed Project, PG&E will not be entitled to a presumption that the costs of the Proposed Project are reasonable or prudently incurred and shall bear the burden of proving (i) the prudence and reasonableness of the costs of the Proposed Project in any proceeding in which PG&E requests authority to include any costs of the Proposed Project in core rates, and (ii) that the storage costs which it proposes to allocate to the class of customers are consistent with such customers' rights to use and actual utilization of the Proposed Project and other PG&E storage facilities.30 This Condition resolves Issue M in the Scoping Memo.
Finally, the Settlement Agreement provides that PG&E will continue to obtain incremental core storage capacity through existing competitive procurement processes unless or until such competitive procurement processes are changed by final Commission order.31
The incremental core storage procurement procedures were adopted by the Commission in D.06-07-010, as modified by D.08-07-009. Under those decisions, PG&E is authorized to obtain incremental core storage capacity from storage providers using a request for offers process. Pursuant to the decision adopted today, GRS may participate in PG&E's authorized incremental core storage capacity solicitations.
Issue P - PG&E's ownership interest in the Proposed Project
LGS and WGS are concerned that PG&E's ability to increase its ownership interest in the Proposed Project could allow PG&E to exercise undue control of the storage market, and recommend that PG&E be required to obtain prior Commission approval before enlarging its share of the Proposed Project or before expanding or developing additional storage capacity beyond the 20 bcf of underground gas storage capacity anticipated for the Proposed Project. The Scoping Memo includes this as Issue P.
To address concerns regarding increased ownership of the Proposed Project by PG&E, the Settlement Agreement provides that the Proposed Project is limited to the 20 bcf storage capacity described in the Applications or the capacity approved by the Commission in this proceeding, with PG&E owning a 25 percent undivided interest in such capacity (5 bcf) and GRS owning a 75 percent undivided interest in such capacity (15 bcf).32
The Settlement Agreement prohibits PG&E or GRS from expanding the storage capacity of the Proposed Project beyond the capacity approved by the Commission in this proceeding without first seeking and receiving from the Commission any authority that may be required at the time of any proposed capacity expansion. To the extent that PG&E and/or GRS plan to expand the facilities and contend that Commission authority is not required at the time of any proposed capacity expansion, the Settlement Agreement requires PG&E and/or GRS to provide prior notice to the Commission and all parties to this proceeding of such proposed expansion and a detailed explanation in support of the contention that Commission authority is not required.33
The Settlement Agreement also prohibits PG&E and/or GRS from changing the original 25 percent/75 percent project ownership ratio without first seeking and receiving from the Commission any approval that may be required at the time of the proposed change in the ownership ratio. To the extent that PG&E and GRS plan to change the original 25 percent/75 percent project ownership ratio and contend that Commission authority is not required, the Settlement Agreement requires PG&E and/or GRS to provide prior notice to the Commission and all parties to this proceeding of such proposed ownership ratio change and a detailed explanation in support of the contention that Commission authority is not required.34
Finally, the Settlement Agreement requires PG&E and/or GRS to serve any notice, application and/or advice letter required by the Settlement Agreement or by laws and regulations applicable at the time authority is sought on all parties to this proceeding.35
The provisions contained in Conditions 1(a) through 1(d) resolve Issue P in the Scoping Memo.
Issue Q - What reports and disclosures should be required?
In its protest to the PG&E Application and response to the GRS Application, DRA requests that GRS and PG&E be required to file annual reports detailing storage operations. DRA states that it does not object to issuance of the requested CPCNs if the reporting requirements are established.
The Scoping Memo asks what degree of disclosure should be required of Applicants' contracts and contract-related information; whether the Commission should adopt DRA's recommended reporting requirements for GRS and PG&E to address concerns about the potential exercise of market power; whether GRS and PG&E should be required to submit periodic reports containing information concerning changes in Proposed Project ownership by PG&E and its affiliates; and whether GRS should be required to comply with any other conditions, such as those conditions imposed on LGS by D.08-01-018.
The Settlement Agreement requires GRS to semi-annually (on April 30 and on October 31) to report to the Director of the Energy Division, with a copy to DRA, the information about transactions which are not already subject to § 852 and § 854, including the identity of any affiliate that directly or indirectly has acquired or has made an investment resulting in a controlling interest or effective control, whether direct or indirect, in an entity in California or elsewhere in Western North America that (i) produces natural gas or provides natural gas storage, transportation or distribution services, or (ii) generates electricity, or provides electric transmission or distribution services. The information reported must include the nature (including name and location) of the asset acquired or in which the investment was made, and the amount of the acquisition or investment.36
The Settlement Agreement requires GRS to provide to the Director of the Energy Division, for transactions to be completed within one year or less (short-term transactions), copies of all service agreements for such transactions within 30 days after commencement of the short-term service, to be followed by quarterly transaction summaries of specific sales. If GRS enters into multiple service agreements within a 30-day period, GRS may file these service agreements together so as to conserve the resources of both GRS and the Commission.37 The quarterly summary of transactions must list, for all tariffed services, the purchaser, the transaction period, the type of service (e.g., firm, interruptible, balancing, etc.), the rate, the applicable volume, whether there is an affiliate relationship between GRS and the customer, and the total charge to the customer.
The Settlement Agreement also requires GRS to provide to the Energy Division, for transactions that will not be completed within one year (long-term transactions), true copies of all service agreements for such transactions within 30 days after commencement of the long-term service. To ensure the clear identification of filings and in order to facilitate the orderly maintenance of the Commission's records, the Settlement Agreement provides that service agreements for long-term transactions be filed separately from summaries of short-term transactions.38
The Settlement Agreement prohibits GRS from engaging in storage or hub service transactions with its parent, Northwest Natural Gas Company (NW Natural) or its successors, or with any entity owned, affiliated with, or controlled by NW Natural, or its successors.39
The Settlement Agreement requires GRS to provide an annual report to DRA detailing its operations in connection with GRS' percentage of undivided ownership interest in the Proposed Project, including:
(a) The capacity of the storage facilities, i.e., total inventory, injection and withdrawal rights;
(b) A summary showing average monthly storage inventory, injections and withdrawals for the project, which summary based on the Energy Information Reports GRS submits to the United States Department of Energy (DOE);
(c) Daily operating records, aggregated on a weekly basis, based on the Energy Information Reports GRS submits to the DOE;
(d) Firm capacity under contract on a monthly and annual basis; and
(e) Interruptible capacity sold on a monthly and annual basis.40
The Settlement Agreement requires GRS to maintain its corporate records at the utility level, make such records available to the Commission pursuant to § 314, and make available utility officers, employees and agents as required by § 314(a).41
The Settlement Agreement requires PG&E to provide an annual report to DRA detailing its operations at the Proposed Project, including, (a) the capacity of the Proposed Project storage facilities (i.e., total inventory, injection and withdrawal rights for PG&E's percentage of undivided ownership interest in the Proposed Project); (b) a summary showing average monthly storage inventory, injections and withdrawals for PG&E's percentage of undivided ownership interest in the Proposed Project, based on the Energy Information Reports that are submitted to the DOE; and (c) daily operating records, aggregated on a weekly basis, for PG&E's percentage of undivided ownership interest in the Proposed Project, based on the Energy Information Reports that are submitted to the DOE.42
The Settlement Agreement requires PG&E to, on an annual basis, provide a report to DRA of PG&E's aggregate firm storage capacity under contract (containing monthly and annual data) and aggregate interruptible storage capacity sold (also containing monthly and annual data).43
The Settlement Agreement requires GRS and PG&E to provide an annual report to DRA, including (i) the capacity of the storage facilities (i.e., total inventory, injection and withdrawal rights); (ii) a summary showing average monthly storage inventory, injections and withdrawals for the Proposed Project, based on the Energy Information Reports the operator submits to the DOE; (iii) daily operating records, aggregated on a weekly basis, based on the Energy Information Reports the operator submits to the DOE; and (iv) a copy of the annual safety report, including a description of all safety-related incidents that is submitted to the United States Department of Transportation (DOT).44
The Settlement Agreement provides that GRS or PG&E may submit competitively sensitive, confidential information under seal in accordance with GO 66-C and § 583.45
The provisions of Condition 4 resolve Issue M in the Scoping Memo.
Other Terms of the Settlement Agreement
The Settling Parties agree to jointly request that the Commission adopt all of the Conditions in the Settlement Agreement; that the Conditions will apply to GRS and PG&E; and that GRS and PG&E will abide by the Conditions, effective upon the Commission's granting of the Applications and issuance of a Commission decision containing the Conditions.
The Settling Parties also agree to actively support prompt approval and implementation of the Settlement Agreement by including the Conditions without modification as ordering paragraphs in the decision granting the Applications, and to participate jointly in briefings to Commissioners and their advisors regarding the Settlement Agreement and the issues it resolves. Prior to a Commission decision in this proceeding, the Settling Parties further agree that they will not directly or indirectly advocate or otherwise seek any modification to or elimination of any or all of the Conditions.
The Settling Parties agree that upon issuance of a Commission decision adopting the Conditions, the Conditions may only be modified, revised, or eliminated by the Commission in a decision issued in response to a formal petition to the Commission that must be served on all of the parties to this proceeding, including DRA and LGS. Any such petition must state with specificity the need and basis for any proposed modification, revision, or elimination of any Condition(s).
The Settling Parties agree that upon Commission approval and implementation of the Settlement Agreement by including the Conditions as ordering paragraphs in the decision granting the Applications, all of the issues raised in the responses and protests of DRA and LGS will be deemed resolved and that GRS and PG&E will abide by the Conditions.
The Settling Parties agree that upon issuance of a Commission decision adopting the Conditions without modification, the Conditions may only be enforced by the Commission on its own investigation or pursuant to a formal or informal complaint by any of the Settling Parties, and that this Settlement Agreement does not create any contractual or other rights in the Settling Parties to enforce such Conditions in any forum other than the Commission.
Discussion
We have specific tests for whether or not to grant a motion for settlement and have applied these tests many times over the years. The Commission will not approve a settlement, whether contested or uncontested, unless it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.46 We agree with Settling Parties that the unopposed Settlement Agreement meets the requirements set forth in Rule 12.1(d).
Reasonable in Light of the Whole Record
The proposed Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record because the Settling Parties are fairly reflective of the affected interests, these parties actively participated in this proceeding, and the Settlement Agreement fairly and reasonably resolves the issues raised by the parties.
DRA protested the PG&E Application because it does not believe PG&E should be entitled to a presumption that the costs of the Proposed Project would be deemed reasonable for inclusion in the next GT&S rate case if the Commission granted PG&E's request for a waiver of a detailed cost showing in this proceeding. Condition 3 of the Settlement Agreement resolves concerns about subsidization of the Proposed Project by PG&E's core customers and the reasonableness of Proposed Project costs that PG&E may seek to recover.
DRA also recommended that GRS and PG&E be required to file annual reports detailing storage operations. Condition 4 of the Settlement Agreement resolves concerns about the need for information to detect the exercise of market power, and resolves Issues Q.1 through Q.4 in the Scoping Memo.
LGS' and WGS' responses to the Applications raised concerns regarding the potential for PG&E to afford GRS undue preference, the potential for PG&E's core ratepayers to subsidize PG&E's share of the Proposed Project, changes in project ownership, the need for parity in reporting and regulatory requirements among independent storage providers, and other potential impacts on the competitive gas storage market resulting from the joint development of the Proposed Project.
Condition 1 of the Settlement Agreement resolves concerns regarding increased ownership of the Proposed Project by PG&E and resolves Issue P in the Scoping Memo by limiting the capacity of the Proposed Project and GRS' and PG&E's share in ownership of that capacity, and by requiring GRS and PG&E obtain Commission approval before expanding that capacity or changing the percentage of the Proposed Project owned by GRS or PG&E. Condition 2 resolves concerns regarding the potential for undue preference to GRS by PG&E due to the unique circumstances presented by PG&E's ownership interest in the Proposed Project, and resolves Issue G in the Scoping Memo.
Condition 4 resolves concerns about the exercise of market power by establishing requirements for reporting ownership interests, short-term and long-term contracts, and storage operations data for each Applicant's share of the Proposed Project on a separate and combined basis, and for PG&E's monthly and annual aggregate firm storage capacity under contract and monthly and annual aggregate interruptible storage capacity sold.
In their PHC statements, DRA and LGS recommended that, if the Commission deems the JPA and the OA to be appropriate, these agreements should be approved as part of the Commission's decision because of the unique nature of the partnership between PG&E and GRS, and the different regulations applicable to each. LGS also recommended that the OBA be approved as part of the Commission's decision.
The Settlement Agreement states that all parties have now had the opportunity to review the complete JPA, OA, and OBA, and to negotiate Conditions to prevent situations where PG&E could provide preferential treatment to GRS. Therefore, to the extent that the Commission approves the Conditions without modification and includes them as ordering paragraphs in a decision granting the Applications, Issue G is resolved and the Settling Parties no longer seek Commission approval of the JPA, OA, and OBA.
The Settling Parties have bargained earnestly and in good faith, and the agreed upon Conditions are the result of extensive negotiations between the Settling Parties that reflect a reasonable compromise of strongly held views on issues important to the parties. The compromises reached in the Settlement Agreement resolve many of the contested issues in the proceeding, and are within the reasonable range of possible outcomes of litigation. Therefore, we find that the Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record.
Consistent With Law
The Commission may not adopt a settlement that is contrary to law. The Settling Parties dispute factual and legal issues, but set aside their disputes and propose a settlement which they contend does not contravene or compromise any statutory provision or prior Commission decision. We agree that, taking the Settlement Agreement as a whole and considering the public interest (as discussed more below), the Settlement Agreement does not contravene or compromise any statutory provision or prior Commission decision. Moreover, unless we expressly provide otherwise, adoption of a settlement does not constitute approval of, or precedent regarding, any principle or issue in the proceeding or in any future proceeding.47
Although the Settlement Agreement provides that GRS or PG&E may submit competitively sensitive, confidential information under seal in accordance with GO 66-C and § 583, the Commission will determine at the time such information is submitted whether, pursuant to GO 66-C, the information should receive confidential treatment.
In the Public Interest
There is a strong public policy favoring the settlement of disputes to avoid costly and protracted litigation,48 and the Settlement Agreement satisfies this public policy preference for the following reasons.
First, the Settling Parties represent the interests of the Applicants, their ratepayers and their competitors. GRS and PG&E represent the interests of their shareholders and PG&E provides necessary energy services to its customers. DRA represents the interests of public utility customers and subscribers within the jurisdiction of the Commission, with the goal of obtaining the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels.49 LGS represents the interests of competitive gas storage providers because it owns and operates an independent gas storage facility, competes with PG&E and others in the storage service business, and will face additional competition from GRS and PG&E after the Proposed Project is approved and constructed. Thus, the Settling Parties represent the interests of shareholders, ratepayers, and competitors that have an interest in the gas storage market. Although the Settlement Agreement is not joined by all parties, the Settlement Agreement is uncontested.50
The Settling Parties are experienced in public utility litigation, and the Settlement Agreement is the result of extensive, vigorous, and arms-length settlement negotiations. The Settling Parties acknowledge that the Commission could have resolved the issues raised in the responses and protests of DRA and LGS in favor of either DRA, GRS, LGS or PG&E. Accordingly, the Settling Parties themselves have balanced a variety of issues of importance to them and have agreed to the Conditions and other terms of the Settlement Agreement as a reasonable means by which to resolve all of the issues raised in the responses and protests of DRA and LGS.
The Settlement Agreement serves the public interest by resolving competing concerns in a collaborative and cooperative manner. By reaching a settlement, the parties avoid the costs of further litigation in this proceeding, and eliminate the possible litigation costs for rehearing and appeal. Approval of the Settlement Agreement will provide speedy and complete resolution of contested issues between the Settling Parties and will facilitate prompt approval of the Applications.
The Settlement Agreement resolves competitors' concerns about the possibility of PG&E increasing its share of the ownership of the Proposed Project and its share of California's gas storage market, and concerns that PG&E might grant preferential treatment to GRS over other independent storage providers. The Settlement Agreement also resolves concerns that PG&E might use revenues from core customers to subsidize its Proposed Project costs, and requires PG&E to demonstrate the prudence and reasonableness of any Proposed Project costs it may seek to include in core rates in the future.
Finally, the Settlement Agreement establishes reporting and disclosure requirements for customer contracts, storage operations, and project ownership that will provide the Commission with information similar to that required of other independent storage providers but with additional information appropriate for the unique relationship between GRS and PG&E.
Thus, for these reasons and taken as a whole, the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest. The Settlement Agreement meets the tests for Commission adoption, and should be approved by the Commission as a fair and final resolution of several issues in this proceeding.
22 Condition 2(c).
23 Condition 2(d).
24 Condition 2(a).
25 Condition 2(b).
26 Condition 2(e).
27 Condition 2(f).
28 The PG&E Application contains PG&E's proposal to integrate its share of the Proposed Project capacity into its existing storage operations. No party opposed PG&E's proposal. However, this issue (Issue H) was included in to Scoping Memo so the Commission could consider the proposal.
29 Condition 3(a).
30 Condition 3(b).
31 Condition 3(c).
32 Condition 1(a).
33 Condition 1(b).
34 Condition 1(c).
35 Condition 1(d).
36 Condition 4(a)(i).
37 Condition 4(a)(ii).
38 Condition 4(a)(iii).
39 Condition 4(a)(iv).
40 Condition 4(a)(v).
41 Condition 4(a)(vi).
42 Condition 4(b)(i).
43 Condition 4(b)(ii).
44 Condition 4(c).
45 This provision is included in Conditions 4(a), 4(b), and 4(c).
46 Rule 12.1(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
47 Rule 12.5.
48 D.88-12-083, 30 CPUC2d 189, 221.
49 § 309.5(a).
50 WGS, an independent gas storage provider, participated in the settlement discussions but is not a party to the Settlement Agreement. However, according to the Settling Parties, WGS does not oppose the settlement terms, does not request evidentiary hearings, and does not oppose the issuance of CPCNs to GRS or PG&E (Joint Status Report of DRA, GRS, LGS, and PG&E, at 3.)
