I. El Paso/Mohave October 16, 2003 Motion to Strike

In its motion, El Paso and Mohave move to strike questions four through seven of the prepared testimony of Kirk T. Morgan on behalf of Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern) on the grounds that testimony is beyond the scope of this proceeding. In support of its position, El Paso and Mohave cite the September 29, 2003 Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner (Scoping Memo) which limited the scope of this proceeding to SoCalGas compliance case. On October 20, 2003, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) filed a response in agreement and support of the motion to strike. Transwestern also asserts that litigation of the issues raised by the subject testimony would take substantial time and delay implementation of Decision (D.) 01-12-018.

In SoCalGas' motion to strike dated October 20, 2003, SoCalGas also moves to strike the testimony of Morgan. SoCalGas observes that Morgan admits that the purpose of his testimony is to "expand the scope of the proceeding." SoCalGas also asserts that it and other parties should also be allowed to propose modifications to the CSA, including consideration of SoCalGas' "Preferred Case" if the testimony of Morgan is not stricken.

Kern submitted a response on October 29, 2003, in which it admits that Morgan's testimony is outside the parameters of implementation of the CSA. However, Kern relies on a latter Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR) dated October 20, 2003, which stated that the Assigned Commissioner would consider expanding the scope of this proceeding and would also consider modifications to the CSA that are uncontested and sponsored by all parties. Kern argues that the issues raised by Morgan can be litigated within the existing schedule and provide immediate benefit to California consumers.

It is uncontested that the Morgan's testimony is outside the scope of this proceeding as defined in the September 29 Scoping Memo. The issue raised by Kern is whether the subsequent October 20 ACR permits testimony that goes beyond addressing the compliance case. Kern offers a reasonable interpretation of the language its cites in the October 20 ACR. However, I have discussed the wording of October 20 ACR with the Assigned Commissioner. Concerning testimony that makes changes to the CSA, the second ruling paragraph in the October 20 ACR is controlling. The ACR's second ruling paragraph Ruled that "prior to commencement of hearings SoCalGas may submit for Commissioner consideration changes to the CSA that are uncontested." No ruling paragraph appears supporting Kern's position. Moreover, as SoCalGas' response indicates, it and other parties would demand and would be entitled as a matter of fairness to propose competing proposals, like SoCalGas' "Preferred Case," which in turn may significantly delay this proceeding. Consequently, the motion of El Paso and Mohave to strike the testimony of Kern should be granted since the testimony is outside the scope of this proceeding as articulated in the September 29 Scoping Memo.¹

¹ It should be noted that at page 2 of Appendix B of the CSA, the signatories anticipated and addressed issues concerning new or expanded interconnections.