II. DISCUSSION

As indicated above, D.10-06-035 authorized a compression rate of $0.83 per therm based on a $0.837 mid-point of the possible range of proposed charges. In Clean Energy's view, normal rounding conventions suggest numbers such as $0.837 should be rounded to the nearest, and impliedly highest, whole number. Accordingly, Clean Energy requests that for purposes of the rates to be reflected in PG&E's revised tariffs, the Commission should have directed that the adopted compression cost be reflected as $0.84. In the alternative, Clean Energy requests that the Decision utilize $0.837 rather than the adopted $0.83. (Rhg. App., at pp. 1-3.)

Clean Energy's rehearing application fails to meet the applicable requirements as set forth in statute and under the Commission's own rules. Specifically, Public Utilities Code section 1732 provides in pertinent part:

The application for rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the applicant considers the decision or order to be unlawful.

(Pub. Util. Code, § 1732.)

Similarly, Rule 16.1(c) of our Rules of Practice and Procedure adds that the purpose of an application for rehearing is to identify legal error, and the applicant must make specific references to the record or law.⁶

Clean Energy does not allege or identify any legal error in D.10-06-035. And it points to no legal authority that would require the $.0.837 mid-point be rounded up to $0.84. Clean Energy merely states its preference and desire that we adjust the charge based on its understanding of generally accepted rounding conventions. Perhaps one could reason Clean Energy raises a factual question. However, even if that were true, such issues are appropriately addressed by the filing of a petition for modification consistent with Rule 16.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.⁷

⁶ See Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 16.1, subd. (c).

⁷ See Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 16.4.