4. Section 1708
TURN and RACE contend that the Phase I Decision violates section 1708 by altering a prior order or decision without providing parties with notice and opportunity to be heard. Section 1708 provides:
[t]he commission may at any time, upon notice to the parties, and with opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of complaints, rescind, alter, or amend any order or decision made by it. Any order rescinding, altering, or amending a prior order or decision shall, when served upon the parties, have the same effect as an original order or decision.
(Pub. Util. Code, § 1708.) Applicants claim that we violated section 1708 by establishing Otay Mesa as a joint receipt point and setting interim rates for that joint receipt point, thereby amending the Scoping Memo and the Decision Denying Appeal of Categorization (D.04-07-030), without providing parties an opportunity to give notice and comment. (Joint Application, p. 18.) Because we eliminate the establishment of interim rates in the Phase I Decision, we only address Applicants' section 1708 argument as it applies to the establishment of the Otay Mesa joint receipt point. Applicants' argument is without merit.
Section 1708 provides for due process before the Commission can change a previous order. The due process requirement is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard. In short, section 1708 ensures that the Commission and parties to Commission proceedings are fair to each other. In this proceeding, the proposed decision (PD) and an Alternate PD (Alternate) were circulated, and numerous parties commented on both drafts. While the issue of the Otay Mesa joint receipt point was not addressed in the PD or the Alternate, it was raised by several parties in their opening and reply comments to the PD and Alternate.3 Parties also raised the issue of a joint receipt point at Otay Mesa in their opening proposals, and comments to those proposals.4 Thus, the parties had notice and opportunity to be heard on the joint receipt point issue.
For these reasons, Applicants' section 1708 argument fails.
3 Several parties proposed that Otay Mesa should be designated a joint receipt point on the SoCalGas system. (See Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC) Reply Comments on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 4-5; Reply Comments of Sempra on the PD, August 16, 2004, p. 1; Reply Comments of Coral on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 2-3; and Reply Comments of Chevron USA, Inc. on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 6-7.) Some parties also opposed the designation of Otay Mesa as a delivery point on the SoCalGas system. (See BHP Billiton Reply Comments on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 1-2; Southern California Edison Reply Comments on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp.2-3; SES Reply Comments on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 1-3; Office of Ratepayer Advocates Reply Comments on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 1-2; Reply of Duke Energy North American and Duke Energy Marketing America to Comments on the PD, August, 16, 2004, pp. 1- 5; and Northwest Reply Comments on the PD, August 16, 2004, pp. 2-4 (supporting establishing a receipt point at Otay Mesa into the SDG&E system, but not at SoCalGas as well).
4 See Phase I proposal of SoCalGas and SDG&E, pp. 56-57, 93-97; Opening Comments of BHP Billiton's to Phase I proposals, pp. 16-17 (March 23, 2004); Opening Comments of Coral to Phase 1 proposals, pp. 32-36 (March 23, 2004); Sempra comments to Phase 1 proposals.
