7. Chevron's Protest
On March 25, 2005, Chevron filed a renewed request for a hearing on the Final MND. Chevron disputes Staff's reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project and contends that SPBPC must provide, through hearings or amended application, a final business plan, which includes identifying the location of all anticipated tie-ins, potential pumping stations (or how the pipeline can be returned to service without a pumping station), and other infrastructure or improvements required to return the pipeline to commercial operation before the Commission can grant its request for public utility status.
Chevron's request for a hearing was denied in the May 11, 2005 Ruling and Scoping Memo of Assigned Commissioner and ALJ. The ruling states, in part:
"According to Chevron, `[A] hearing is necessary so that Chevron and other members of the public may present the reasons why Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required prior to approval of the Application.' Chevron provides no other reason to support its argument that a hearing is necessary. The Final MND addresses this issue as follows:
While it was determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental effects, mitigation measures were identified that would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures were agreed to by the project applicants prior to the release of the MND for public review. The MND determined that the proposed project, as revised with the identified mitigation measures, would result in a less than significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for this project. (Final MND, Response A-1, at pp. 5-7.)" (p.2)
· · ·
"Chevron's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. Chevron cannot reasonably argue that environmental concerns are not covered by the Final MND. Chevron attests that it (and other interested parties) `submitted comments on the Draft MND . . .' and that `the Draft MND has been revised . . . in response to those comments.' Indeed, Chevron did file comments - 24 pages of single-spaced comments. And unquestionably, the Commission responded to those comments, devoting 21 pages of the Final MND to addressing all of the environmental issues raised by Chevron, including Chevron's allegation that an EIR was required. The Final MND addressed each environmental issue of concern to Chevron, if not to Chevron's liking. Chevron certainly did not identify in its Motion any neglected issue. . ." (p. 7.)
"To support its contention that SPBPC must provide a final business plan and identify the location of tie-ins before the Commission can approve SPBPC's Application, Chevron cites numerous cases not applicable to pipeline corporations. Common carrier petroleum pipelines are not subject to the requirements set forth in Section 1001 regarding the need for specified public utilities to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Commission as a prerequisite to the provision of public utility services. However, Chevron obscures this critical fact in arguing that the Commission should apply the same standards used to award CPCNs to other utilities in evaluating whether to grant public utility status to SPBPC. The Commission has established decisive precedents concerning the requirements that a pipeline corporation, such as SPBPC, must satisfy before the Commission will grant it public utility status. These precedents have not required an Applicant to establish the final details concerning how the Applicant will ultimately provide public utility services. Chevron cites none of these precedents." (p. 9).
· · ·
" . . . Also, a total of eight comment letters from various agencies and organizations, including Chevron, were received in response to the Draft MND. These comments are addressed in the Final MND. Based on these filings, the record is sufficient for the Commission to address the Applications now before it. While Chevron's request for a hearing is rejected, the Commission will consider the issues raised by Chevron to the extent they bear on the public interest." (p. 12.)
