9. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the administrative law judge in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. SoCalGas, ORA and TURN filed comments in support of the proposed decision. Edison and SCGC filed comments opposing the proposed decision. SoCalGas, ORA and TURN filed reply comments.

Edison claims that Finding of Fact 9 - "Edison offers no persuasive evidence to show that the GCIM creates perverse incentives for SoCalGas to increase gas prices at the California-Arizona boarder" - is erroneous. In fact, Edison alleged that the GCIM creates perverse incentives but then failed to substantiate that allegation with evidence. ORA and TURN rebutted the allegation with testimony and other evidence showing that the GCIM benefits core ratepayers and does not adversely impact noncore customers. There is no error in the proposed decision's finding of a lack of persuasive evidence by Edison.

Edison also takes issue with Finding of Fact 10: "Edison's allegation that the core did not properly fill its storage in Year Seven is contradicted by the evidence." First, as the proposed decision explains, SoCalGas met its minimum core storage target. In contrast, noncore customers filled only 12% of their storage capacity. As TURN notes, Edison itself acknowledged that SoCalGas met its minimum storage target. (Edison Comments, at 7.) Moreover, Finding of Fact 10 is not premature, as claimed by Edison, since it was Edison that raised the issue of Year Seven storage in this proceeding.

Both Edison and SCGC criticize the proposed decision for disregarding allegations about a SoCalGas information advantage. SoCalGas demonstrated at hearing that relevant information about total gas in its storage system was posted on the utility's GasSelect website and was available to all market participants.

SCGC alleges, without reference to evidence, that SoCalGas has a monopoly position in storage services, intrastate transmission and core procurement that gives it "the power to dominate, if not manipulate, the gas market in Southern California." The allegation is speculative and unsupported by the record. At hearing, SoCalGas, TURN and ORA negated this allegation of market power, which had been raised by Edison, and Edison subsequently dropped the allegation.

ORA notes, and we agree, that the comments of Edison and SCGC do little more than reargue the positions taken in their briefs. Under Rule 77.3 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, comments "which merely reargue positions taken in briefs will be accorded no weight and are not to be filed."