5. Wild Goose's Status as a Public Utility for Purposes of Eminent Domain

The June 1997 CPCN decision bestows public utility status upon Wild Goose. (D.97-06-091, 73 CPUC2d 90 at Finding of Fact 11, Conclusion of Law 11, Ordering Paragraph 1.) Since Wild Goose is a Delaware corporation, in 1996 it obtained authorization from the California Secretary of State to transact intrastate business in California in conformance with the law of this state, as § 704 requires. Wild Goose's Certificate of Status, Foreign Corporation, executed on September 10, 1996, is Appendix A to its application.

Following the CPCN grant, Wild Goose exercised its right of eminent domain to condemn certain real property in connection with the construction and operation of its existing natural gas storage field. The record reflects that this condemnation has been the source of extensive litigation between Roseville Land and Wild Goose in the civil courts. Roseville Land did participate in the evidentiary hearings that led to the CPCN decision; at the PHC in this proceeding, Roseville Land also raised concerns about Wild Goose's status as a public utility and the associated condemnation authority. The scoping memo includes these issues within the CPCN phase (Phase I).

Roseville Land's primary contention is that Wild Goose cannot be a public utility because it is not a gas corporation operating a gas plant to store gas "for light, heat, or power" as defined in § 221. Roseville Land relies on Wild Goose's admission that it does not ask its customers what they use gas for. This contention suggests a lack of familiarity with how the natural gas system network operates on the one hand, and on the other, with Commission precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the Public Utilities Code and the common law doctrine that a public utility must dedicate its facilities to public use.

The Wild Goose facility is interconnected with PG&E's intrastate transmission and distribution systems and through that transportation network, with the transmission and distribution systems of SoCalGas, as well as the interstate systems that interconnect with them both. In unbundling the gas storage systems of the incumbent monopoly utilities via the Gas Storage Decision and subsequent decisions, the Commission sought to remove imbedded cross-subsidies, thereby removing barriers to entry for new storage providers. Wild Goose's storage, whether provided to noncore customers or core aggregators, is the functional equivalent of storage owned by PG&E or by SoCalGas. The underground storage reservoir and associated pipelines, compressors, and equipment owned and operated by Wild Goose represent "gas plant" under § 221. Wild Goose is a "gas corporation" owing and operating such gas plant for compensation, consistent with § 222.

Roseville Land also argues that Wild Goose cannot be a public utility because by offering service at market-based rates it necessarily fails to comply with those provisions of the Public Utilities Code that mandate fair, nondiscriminatory rates (e.g. § 454) set out in filed tariffs (e.g. § 489). In other words, Roseville Land asserts that Wild Goose violates such statutes because it may decline to serve customers who choose not to accept the market price offered and because it may negotiate different rates (or other terms or conditions) with different customers. Roseville Land misunderstands the application of these statutes to the noncore gas storage market, as interpreted by the Commission. We affirm that Wild Goose, as a public utility, may exercise the public utility right of eminent domain, as provided in the Public Utilities Code and consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure. This right necessarily will extend to the expansion project, if we amend Wild Goose's CPCN as requested in this application.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page