11. Other Issues

The scoping memo left open the issue of whether to hold further hearings on this application after the issuance of the Final EIR. The hearings would not be on the Final EIR, which does not require hearings, but rather, on issues raised in the non-environmental portion of the case that might need to be addressed further in light of any changes to the proposed project made in the EIR. We do not believe that the EIR contains the type of changes that require further hearings.

An issue also exists as to whether LGS should be exempt from compliance with the Commission's Affiliate Transaction Rules. Pursuant to D.99-09-002, the Commission has modified the Affiliate Transaction Rules so that the utilities which were respondents to that proceeding, and any other utilities which the Commission subsequently designates, should be subject to the Affiliate Transaction Rules. D.99-09-002 did not require Wild Goose to comply with the Affiliate Transaction Rules at this time because, among other reasons, Wild Goose was not a respondent to the Affiliate Transaction proceeding (Rulemaking 97-04-011/Investigation 97-04-012), and did not possess market power in the California gas storage market or the ability to cross-subsidize Wild Goose's affiliates with ratepayer assets.

Although no party raises the issue of whether LGS should be subject to the Affiliate Transaction Rules, because LGS was also not a respondent to the Affiliate Transaction proceeding, and it does not possess market power in the California gas storage market or the ability to cross-subsidize LGS' affiliates with ratepayer assets at this time, we do not now apply the Affiliate Transaction Rules to LGS.

However, Decision 97-12-088, slip op. at p. 87, provides for review of the Affiliate Transaction Rules not later than December 31, 2000, and sooner if conditions warrant. LGS is put on notice that we intend the respondents in that proceeding to be all electric and gas utilities within our jurisdiction (including LGS), and the burden will be on the responding utilities to justify limited or partial exemption from the Affiliate Transaction Rules.

In conclusion, when considering the need for and the benefits of competitive gas storage facilities in California, as well as the criteria set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1002, and the outcome of the EIR, we exercise our discretion and approve LGS' application for a CPCN as further defined and conditioned in this decision.

We clarify that the reason we do not close the proceeding because the Commission has yet to affirm or reject the ALJ's July 16, 1999 ruling denying the William's notice of intent to claim compensation.