3. Procedural History

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a timely response and limited protest to the application on June 4, 2009. PG&E's concerns were addressed in the course of discussion among the parties at the June 23, 2009, prehearing conference (PHC). Thereafter, the Assigned Commissioner's September 3, 2009 scoping memo determined that given the lack of dispute about the substance of the application and the relief requested, neither hearings nor briefs would be necessary and preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), which Commission staff had informally recommended, would control the schedule. The scoping memo was amended twice (on
January 1, 2010 and on September 21, 2010) to update the schedule due to delays, beyond the control of the Commission, in the preparation of the SEIR. (We review the environmental review process and the content of the SEIR in
Section 5.)

On February 10, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted a motion for party status filed by Wild Goose Gun Club, Inc. (WGC), which owns the 8.5 acre well pad site that is part of Wild Goose's natural gas storage facilities, and directed WGC to familiarize itself with the scoping memo, as then amended. Thereafter, by informal motion for an extension of time under Rule 11.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), WGC requested leave to file a late response and limited protest to the application to raise a single legal issue. Wild Goose opposed the motion, WGC filed a reply, and on June 22, 2010, the ALJ ruled that the late reply and protest should be filed, that Wild Goose might reply to the protest within 30 days, and that WGC "must pursue its environmental concerns, if any, through the public processes associated with review of the Draft [SEIR], as authorized by the California Environmental Quality Act."¹

¹ Administrative Law Judge's ruling Granting, In Part, Motion of Wild Goose Club, Inc. to File a Response and Limited Protest Out of Time, June 22, 2010, at 6.