II. DISCUSSION

A. The Commission has Authority to Order Rehearing on Issues Over Which it has Previously Denied Rehearing.

SPBPC alleges that we may not reopen for reconsideration our determination in D.11-05-026 to use the SMR Rate to calculate the refunds through an order for rehearing of D.12-02-038. (SPBPC Rehrg. App., p. 4.) Specifically, SPBPC argues that we have not proceeded in a manner required by law by granting rehearing of the final and non-appealable determination in D.11-05-026 that refunds are to be calculated based upon the market rate charged by SPBPC to STUSCO, the SMR Rate. (SPBPC Rehrg. App., p. 4.) SPBPC contends that because only SPBPC and STUSCO filed for rehearing of D.11-05-026 on the issue of using the SMR Rate for calculation of the refund, the Independent Shippers waived any challenge to that determination. (SPBPC Rehrg. App. p. 6.) Consequently, SPBPC alleges that the Commission, like the parties, is estopped from now asserting that D.11-05-026 can be revised as part of its consideration of an application for rehearing of D.12-02-038, to reflect adoption of a refund calculation based on a rate other than the SMR Rate. (SPBPC Rehrg. App., p. 6.) They conclude that our rehearing order on this issue is unlawful because we are in effect granting an untimely rehearing of our determination in D.11-05-026 to use the SMR Rate, rather than a cost-of-service rate, as the basis for calculating refunds. (SPBPC Rehrg. App., p. 8.) Essentially, SPBPC argues that we have no authority to sua sponte grant rehearing on issues over which we have previously denied rehearing. These allegations have no merit, and we reject them.

The Commission "is not an ordinary administrative agency, but a constitutional body with broad legislative and judicial powers." (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (1999) 77 Cal.App.4^th 287, 300; see also, Southern California Edison Company v. Public Utilities Commission, supra, 85 Cal.App.4^th 1086, 1096.) The California Constitution and the Public Utilities Code confer broad authority to the Commission to regulate public utilities, including pipeline corporations such as SPBPC. (See generally, Cal. Const., art. XII, §§ 5 & 6; Pub. Util. Code, §§228 (pipeline corporation), 227 (oil pipelines), 216 (public utilities) & 211 (common carriers).) Furthermore, under section 701, the Commission "may supervise and regulate every public utility in the State and may do all things, whether specifically designated . . . , which are necessary and convenient in the exercise of such power and jurisdiction." (Pub. Util. Code, §701.)

With this authority, we acted lawfully when we ordered rehearing on all issues related to the refund calculations, including use of the SMR Rate, in D.12-04-050. That rehearing order provides the parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard on all issues related to the calculation of the refunds, and to relitigate those issues without any prejudgment by us, and with all their due process rights intact. (See D.12-04-050, pp. 4 & 5 [Ordering Paragraph No. 3.) SPBPC's allegation that we had no authority to do so is simply wrong.

Furthermore, SPBPC's argument that our denial of the rehearing of the SMR Rate in D.12-02-038 renders the use of the SMR Rate final and non-appealable, and that we are consequently estopped from ordering rehearing on the issue, lacks any legal basis. SPBPC provides no law to support its claim that we are estopped from doing what we did. No statutes in the Public Utilities Code, including those involving judicial review, prohibit us from continuing our regulation of the matter, including ordering rehearing of determinations that we reasonably determined should be reconsidered because it is necessary as part of our regulatory authority.

Therefore, SPBPC cites to no law prohibiting us from clarifying, expanding and ordering a rehearing of a matter that is still pending before us. SPBPC's notion that the orders are now final and unappealable is untenable, and would thwart our ability to exercise our constitutional and statutory authority to do all things necessary and germane in our regulation of public utilities.

B. SPBPC's Due Process Assertions Have no Merit.

SPBPC asserts that, because our determination in D.11-05-026 to use the SMR Rate as the basis for calculating refunds is final and non-appealable, the issue is no longer the proper subject of a rehearing order. (SPBPC Rehrg. App., p. 7.) It argues that our only authority to do what we did under these circumstances would be limited to section 1708, which we did not do. (SPBPC Rehrg. App., p. 7.) We reject these assertions.

Section 1708 provides for notice and opportunity to be heard before the Commission modifies a prior decision, regardless of whether it is final or not. (Pub. Util. Code, §1708.) In D.12-04-050, we ordered a full rehearing of the refund calculation and methodology issues through the rehearing process. Thus, there was no need to invoke section l708 when we ordered the rehearing for the purposes of clarification and expanding the rehearing issues that we had previously granted in

D.12-02-038.

We believe that due process was met, because the granting of the consolidated rehearings ordered in D.12-02-038 and D.12-04-050 provided parties with notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter prior to our determination of a correct methodology and calculation in a subsequent decision. Accordingly, SPBPC's due process assertions have no merit.