5. Assignment of Proceeding
Timothy Alan Simon is the assigned Commissioner and John S. Wong is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. Following the evidentiary hearings in Phase One, the parties met to discuss the possible settlement of the Phase One issues.
2. On August 22, 2008, SDG&E, SoCalGas, and nine other parties filed the motion to adopt the Settlement Agreement.
3. The briefing schedule for the filing of opening and reply briefs in Phase One was suspended due to the request to suspend the briefing schedule in the motion to adopt the Settlement Agreement.
4. No comments on the motion to adopt the Settlement Agreement were filed.
5. The Settlement Agreement contains the recommendations of the settling parties regarding the Phase One issues, as well as some of the gas balancing issues in Phase Two.
6. The Settlement Agreement addresses the total amount of gas storage capacities that will be made available during the term of the settlement, the allocations to the combined core customers of SDG&E and SoCalGas, the allocations to the wholesale core customers, and the allocations to the balancing function.
7. The Settlement Agreement also addresses the future expansion of the gas storage assets, and the sharing mechanism that ratepayers and shareholders will use to allocate the net revenues from the unbundled storage program and hub services.
8. The Settlement Agreement also resolves the NSMA and SDGE SMA accounts.
9. When all of the various provisions in the Settlement Agreement are considered as part of the whole, it makes for a balanced approach for resolving the Phase One issues and the balancing issues.
10. The Settlement Agreement will ensure that the core and noncore customers in southern California will have sufficient storage services during the term of the settlement, while providing monetary incentives to SDG&E and SoCalGas to encourage them to expand the storage assets for the unbundled storage program.
11. No one raised any legal objections to the motion to adopt the Settlement Agreement or to the provisions in the Settlement Agreement.
1. For all of the reasons discussed in this decision, the Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record and in the public interest.
2. The Settlement Agreement is consistent with the law.
3. The motion to adopt the Settlement Agreement should be granted, and the terms of the Settlement Agreement should be adopted.
4. SDG&E and SoCalGas should take the necessary steps to allocate the net revenues in the NSMA, as provided for in Paragraph 15 and Paragraph 17 of the Settlement Agreement, and to consolidate the ratepayers' share of the net revenues with the other SDG&E and SoCalGas transportation rate adjustments to be effective January 1, 2009.
5. SoCalGas should close the SDGE SMA, the LB SMA and the SG SMA without any adjustment.
6. SDG&E and SoCalGas should take the necessary steps to incorporate the other provisions in the Settlement Agreement into their gas system and storage operations as each situation contemplated by the Settlement Agreement arises.
7. SDG&E and SoCalGas should be directed to file the necessary advice letters under Tier 2 of General Order 96-B to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
