1. RACE's Application is Procedurally Deficient
RACE's Application fails on procedural grounds. RACE alleges that the Phase I Decision contains several findings and conclusions but does not rely on record evidence to support those finding and conclusions. RACE specifically disagrees with our policy view that the importation of LNG is necessary to maintain and ensure a reliable and reasonable natural gas supply. In the Phase I Decision, we adopted a policy of open access and established terms and conditions to enable new supplies, including LNG supplies, to gain access to the utilities' systems. (D.04-09-022, p. 86 [Finding of Fact 37].) The Phase I Decision did not endorse or approve any LNG project,6 but rather addressed policies "that need to be in place to allow potential sources of LNG to access the utilities' gas systems." (D.04-09-022, p. 86 [Finding of Fact 35].)
RACE's Application does not meet the requirements of Rule 86.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rule 86.1), which provides:
Applications for rehearing shall set forth specifically the grounds on which the applicant considers the order or decision of the Commission to be unlawful or erroneous. Applicants are cautioned that vague assertions as to the record or the law, without citation, may be accorded little attention. The purpose of an application for rehearing is to alert the Commission to an error, so that error may be corrected expeditiously by the Commission.
(Rule 86.1 of the Commission Rules of Practice & Procedure, Code of Regs., tit. 20, §86.1; see also Pub. Util. Code, §1732.) While RACE claims that the Phase I Decision contains findings and conclusions that were not supported by record evidence, RACE does not cite to the Phase I Decision's findings and conclusions that it argues are deficient. Furthermore, RACE's arguments appear to be based on policy differences, not legal error. Because RACE has failed to specifically set forth the grounds for legal error in the Decision as required by Rule 86.1, RACE's Application must fail.7
However, even if RACE's Application set forth the specifically the grounds on which it finds the Phase I Decision erroneous, RACE's arguments still fail.
6 Rather, we held that "[t]he issue of whether individual LNG projects should be built in California, or in Mexico, is or will be addressed in the applicable regulatory proceedings examining each individual project." (D.04-09-022, p. 86, Finding of Fact 36.)
7 In addition RACE's claim that Sempra's "eleventh hour" lobby against evidentiary hearings and for favorable treatment at Otay Mesa does not constitute an allegation of legal error.
