II. Background
On June 13, 2001, PG&E filed an application for approval of its open season procedures to award capacity on its backbone paths, the Redwood Path, the Baja Path, and the Silverado Path, for contracts beginning January 1, 2003. 1 Pursuant to the Gas Accord approved by the Commission in Decision (D.) 97-08-055 (Gas Accord), PG&E previously held an open season to award capacity on these same backbone paths; the contracts resulting from that open season extend only through December 31, 2002.
To expedite the application, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on July 14, 2001, issued a ruling shortening time2 for the filing and service of protests or responses and replies to the application. PG&E requested the expedited schedule to coincide with other open seasons currently being held by interstate pipeline companies. A number of interstate pipelines proposed open seasons to see if they could garner sufficient commitments to support pipeline expansions to serve PG&E's existing noncore customers. PG&E states that it already has the infrastructure in place to provide competitive service to these customers and planned its open season in the summer of 2001 so its customers could compare options and make economic decisions. PG&E believes that failure to approve the open season in a timely manner could lead to long-term uneconomic decisions being made by some customers that would be harmful to PG&E's remaining customers.
The ALJ's ruling asked the parties to address the following topics:
1. How much of a core reservation should PG&E maintain?
2. Should there be limits on the amount of capacity any one shipper can control?
3. Should the contracts be long-term, short-term, or a hybrid?
4. Should any capacity be held out of the open season for short-term purchases later?
5. What should be the maximum length of the contracts in light of the fact that the entire period covered will extend beyond the limits of the proposed Gas Accord II?
On June 20, 2001 protests or responses were received from: PG&E, Coral Energy Resources, L.P. (Coral), PanCanadian Energy Services, Inc. (PanCanadian), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Calpine Corporation (Calpine), Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern),3 Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), California Cogeneration Council (CCC), and jointly from Northern California Generation Coalition and the Utility Reform Network (NCGC/TURN). Late-filed comments were received from the Indicated Producers on June 28, 2001.
On June 25, 2001, reply comments were received from PG&E and PanCanadian.
On June 28, 2001, the Commission adopted ALJ Resolution 176-3066 that preliminarily categorized the proceeding as ratesetting and determined that hearings would not be necessary.
1 In its application, PG&E asserts that the Commission concurred with the company's decision to continue with its open season while the current application is pending. This is not the case. The Commission has not made and does not make any such finding. 2 Pursuant to Rules 44.1 and 44.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 3 We grant Transwestern's request to be granted party status.
