2. D.00-09-034

In D.00-09-034, the Commission approved a settlement between SoCalGas and CSD, provided that the parties agreed to two specific changes not applicable to the current controversy. The settling parties agreed to both of these changes.

Paragraph 3 of the settlement agreement¹ provides as follows:

"3. Within 60 days of a final Commission decision adopting this Agreement, SoCalGas will send to all persons from whom SoCalGas acquired mineral interests in the Montebello Gas Storage Field on or after January 1, 1991, a written offer to rescind the acquisition of such mineral rights and to restore the mineral rights to the prior owner upon the execution by the prior owner of a general release of SoCalGas. This offer will remain open for at least 120 days following mailing. SoCalGas will advise CSD of the results of this process on or before July 14, 2000." (D.00-09-034, Appendix A at p. 3.)

In their joint comments on the settlement, CSD and SoCalGas clarified the settlement in various respects. Relevant to this petition, the settling parties stated that due to the small amount of money paid to acquire the mineral rights, and the desire to mend relations with prior mineral rights holders, that SoCalGas did not intend to seek repayment of moneys paid to acquire these rights should a prior owner request rescission under the settlement. (D.00-09-034 at 24.)² The Commission adopted this, among other, clarifications.

The Commission wanted the landowners receiving a rescission offer from SoCalGas to have sufficient information in order to make an informed choice. Therefore, the Commission directed SoCalGas to make full disclosure to these owners of the condition of the property. (Id. at 25.)

While the motion to adopt the settlement was pending before the Commission, SoCalGas had filed Application 00-04-031 requesting Commission authority to sell Montebello. Because of the pendency of the application, and because the landowners were not parties to the OII, the Commission clarified the scope of issues which the settlement resolved. In this clarification, the Commission reaffirmed that individual landowners remained free to pursue other remedies if they deemed rescission to be an inadequate remedy.

"The settling parties state clearly that this settlement does not preclude individual landowners from litigating against SoCalGas, should they believe that rescission is not an adequate remedy for any of SoCalGas' alleged wrongs at Montebello. We clarify that nothing in this decision precludes individual owners from litigating any issues regarding SoCalGas' actions at Montebello should they believe rescission is not an adequate remedy, and nothing in this decision or the settlement can be used by SoCalGas against these owners in any such litigation, in order to preclude litigation of such issues or otherwise." (Id. at 30.)

Finding of Fact 10 summarized the above discussion.³