Background
I. Order Instituting Investigation
On November 2, 2000, the Commission initiated Order Instituting Investigation (I.) 00-11-002 into the adequacy of the SoCalGas and SDG&E gas supply and transmission system to provide service to present and future core and noncore customers of SDG&E. This investigation was prompted by high gas demand during the summer of 2000 that threatened gas curtailments for SDG&E's noncore customers. In addition, in June 2000, SDG&E began to provide gas service to a new electric generator (EG), in Rosarito, Mexico,1 contributing to increased capacity demands.
To address this expanded demand situation, Sempra Energy (Sempra), on behalf of SDG&E, filed Advice Letter (A.L.) 1210-G on August 1, 2000. The A.L. requested emergency review and approval of SDG&E's proposal to temporarily revise the gas transportation service level elections of its large EG customers2 from firm noncore service to interruptible noncore service. Numerous parties filed protests to A.L. 1210-G. The A.L. and ensuing protests raised a variety of questions and issues requiring further investigation by the Commission, prompting the initiation of I.00-11-002.
II. Advice Letter
In addition to Sempra's A.L. 1210-G, SoCalGas filed four other A.L.s that cover many of the topics within the scope of the OII: A.L. 2929, filed June 21, 2000; A.L. 2966, filed October 12, 2000; A.L. 3002, filed March 7, 2001; and A.L. 3029, filed June 7, 2001. SoCalGas withdrew A.L. 2929 on July 1, 2002. We address the disposition of the remaining three A.L.s in this decision.
III. Bifurcation of the Proceeding
The OII specified certain issues to be addressed in the proceeding relating to SoCalGas and SDG&E's ability to continue providing service to SDG&E's core and noncore customers. The Commission included SoCalGas in the investigation because SoCalGas provides transmission service to the SDG&E territory. Following two Prehearing Conferences (PHC), and a Joint Issue Statement submitted by the parties, the assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Scoping Memo adopting the Joint Issue Statement and adding additional topics to the proceeding, including the adequacy of the SoCalGas gas transmission system to serve the needs of its own customers. Because the addition of this topic significantly expanded the scope of the proceeding, and increased the projected time for evidentiary hearings, the ALJ issued a ruling bifurcating the proceeding into two phases: Phase I addressing the adequacy of SDG&E's system, and Phase II covering the adequacy of SoCalGas's system.
IV. Decision 01-12-018
On December 11, 2001, the Commission issued D.01-12-018, in the GIR proceeding, I.99-07-003.3 This decision adopted a Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (CSA), with modifications, that was supported by numerous parties, including SoCalGas and SDG&E. The CSA primarily applied to SoCalGas, so the Phase I issues relating to SDG&E were not significantly impacted by this decision. However, since the CSA created a system of firm, tradable backbone transmission rights for SoCalGas, the receipt point capacity allocation issues in Phase II no longer needed to be addressed.
1 Commission Federal de Electricidad's Presidente Juarez Power Plant in Baja California Norte, Mexico (Rosarito) receives its natural gas supply exclusively through Gasoducto Rosarito (GR), a SDG&E affiliate. When SoCalGas and SDG&E submitted Application (A.) 98-07-005 to provide service to GR, their application did not disclose any uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the system to meet the requirements of existing customers in addition to the new, incremental requirements of GR. 2 Large EG customers were defined as those with an average daily gas usage of greater than 15 million cubic feet. 3 I.99-07-003 was an investigation on the Commission's own motion to consider the costs and benefits of various promising revisions to gas industry regulation.
