Comments on Draft Decision
The ALJ's draft decision in this matter was served on the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on ____________ and reply comments on _____________.
1. NARCO contracted for firm transportation of 508,000 Dth of gas during the period from August 1, 1991 to July 31, 1992 and, for 513,000 Dth of gas during the period from August 1, 1992 to July 31, 1993.
2. Tariff Schedule G-FT requires that use of less than 75% of the minimum annual contract quantity is subject to a use-or-pay charge of 80% of the weighted average transportation rate for any shortfall.
3. NARCO alone had sufficient knowledge of its future operations to designate the appropriate amount of gas for which to contract with PG&E during the two contract years at issue.
4. As an experienced non-core gas user and purchaser, NARCO knew or should have known that its underutilization of gas would subject it to a use-or-pay penalty.
5. NARCO's agent Zaro had ostensible, if not actual, authority to execute the contract on behalf of NARCO.
6. Granting the relief NARCO requests would harm PG&E's ratepayers, would be inconsistent with prior Commission orders and PG&E's tariffs, and would set a poor precedent to guide future behavior.
1. PG&E's Tariff Schedule G-FT is enforceable.
2. PG&E does not have the discretion to disregard its tariff and waive the use-or-pay penalty.
3. The complaint fails to demonstrate an action taken or not taken by PG&E in violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the Commission.
4. The relief requested in the complaint should be denied and the complaint should be dismissed.
5. Because of the length of time this matter has been pending, this order should be made effectively immediately.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The relief requested in the complaint is denied and the complaint is dismissed.
2. Case 93-06-015 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
