I. INTRODUCTION
Decision (D.)11-05-026 (or "Decision") involved Application
(A.) 08-09-024, filed by San Pablo Bay Pipeline Company LLC ("SPBPC") for approval of tariffs for the San Joaquin Valley Crude Oil Pipeline ("Pipeline"). The proceeding also involved several complaint cases. In this decision, we (1) denied SPBPC's request to charge market-based rates for the transportation of heavy crude oil from the Pipeline; (2) set rates for the transportation of crude oil between the San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area at $1.34 per barrel; (3) resolved complaints filed by Independent Shippers1 against SPBPC and Shell Trading US Company ("STUSCO")2 and ordered refunds for past overcharges from April 1, 2005 to the effective date of
D.11-05-026; (4) approved the transfer of physical assets from the Pipeline's former owner to SPBPC; (5) denied SPBPC's request to exclude certain tanks and truck racks from the assets transferred to it; and (6) adopted a tariff to govern the provision of heated oil transportation service by SPBPC.
San Pablo Bay Pipeline Company ("SPBPC") and Shell Trading Company ("STUSCO") timely filed an application for rehearing of the Decision. Each of the Independent Shippers (Chevron, Tesoro and Valero) filed timely responses that opposed the applications for rehearing.
In its rehearing application, SPBPC alleges the following errors: (1) The determination that refunds are due from April 2005 is not supported by the record, exceeds the Commission's authority, and constitutes an abuse of discretion; (2) the refund calculation and the forward-going rate are unlawful; (3) the Commission adopted unlawful tariff terms and conditions; and (4) the determination of public utility status involving the private storage tanks and truck racks is unlawful.
In its rehearing application, Shell Trading argues that (1) the determination to include private storage tanks and truck racks in SPBPC's jurisdictional property constitutes an unlawful taking under federal and state constitutions; (2) the Decision adopted unduly discriminatory tariff terms and conditions without providing necessary analysis or findings of fact to support the tariff; and (3) the Commission exceeded its legal authority by ordering refunds, and by imposing refund liability on STUSCO. SPBPC also requests oral argument.
We have reviewed each and every issue raised in the applications for rehearing of D.11-05-026. For the reasons discussed below, we are of the opinion that good cause does exist for the granting of a limited rehearing solely on one issue: the correct methodology for determining the refund amount. We also modify D.11-05-026 to add some findings of fact and conclusions of law, correct one factual error, and clarify our decision to adopt April 1, 2005 as the start date for refunds for all three Independent Shippers. As to all other issues raised in the applications for rehearing, we are of the opinion that good cause does not exist to grant rehearing and we deny them.
1 "Independent Shippers" is the collective designation of Chevron Products Company ("Chevron"), Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company ("Tesoro") and Valero Marketing and Supply Company ("Valero") all of whom ship undiluted heavy crude oil on the Pipeline to their respective Bay Area refineries. (D.11-05-026, p. 3, fn. 1.)
2 STUSCO is an affiliate of SPBPC, and both entities make up the "Shell Parties" that also include Shell Oil Products US ("SOPUS") and their parent corporation, Royal Dutch Shell ("Shell"). SPBPC was created to serve as the public utility; it is the successor of Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products U.S. ("Equilon"), and Shell Trading (US) Company. (See Application, p. 1.)
