5. Standard of Review

In an application seeking new rates, the applicant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that its request is just and reasonable, and that the related ratemaking mechanisms are fair. In a complaint challenging the reasonableness of rates already in effect (including oil pipeline rates which are put into effect 30 days after filing, under certain conditions), the burden of proof is on the complainant. Thus, D.98-08-033 (the first decision in C.97-04-025) properly placed the burden of proof on complainants. We also observed: "While it is true that evidence that covers all of the elements of a complainant's case shifts the burden of production to defendant, merely shifting the burden of production does not meet the burden of persuasion." (Id. at 27.)

D.99-06-093, the decision granting rehearing of D.98-08-033, confirmed and further explained the standard applicable to complaints:

In complaint cases challenging the reasonableness of rates, the Commission "has long held that the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the rates complained of are unreasonable . . . " (BBD Transportation Co., Inc. v. Pacific Southcoast Freight Bureau, et al. [D.82645] (1974) 76 Cal.P.U.C. 485, 508.) Recent cases describe the amount of evidence required to meet this burden as a "preponderance." (City of Long Beach v. Unocal California Pipeline Company [D.93-12-015] (1993), abstracted at 52 Cal.P.U.C.2d. 317.) (D.99-06-093, 1 CPUC3d. 418, 423.)