III. Procedural Background
PG&E filed the above-captioned application on March 2, 2005 in response to Ordering Paragraph 5 of D.04-09-022. PG&E's application proposes the adoption of a 1-day-in-10-year peak day planning standard for core reliability, and that incremental firm core storage capacity be added to meet the planning standard. Third-party storage providers would be allowed to compete to provide the incremental core storage services. PG&E also proposes that it be allowed to solicit additional storage products beyond what is needed to meet the reliability standard if it provides economic benefits to core customers.
Protests to the application were filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Wild Goose Storage Inc. (Wild Goose), and responses to the application were filed by Lodi Gas Storage, L.L.C. (LGS) and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.1 PG&E filed a reply to the protests and responses on April 14, 2005.
Following the June 2, 2005 prehearing conference, a scoping memo and ruling (scoping memo) was issued on June 7, 2005. The scoping memo categorized this proceeding as ratesetting and stated that hearings were necessary. The scoping memo also identified the issues in this proceeding and established the procedural schedule for evidentiary hearings. The procedural schedule was subsequently revised in an October 3, 2005 ruling, and two days of evidentiary hearings were held in January 2006. The evidentiary hearings addressed the 1-day-in-10-year peak day planning standard, and PG&E's credit requirements that it proposed be applied to the third-party storage providers. This proceeding was submitted with the filing of reply briefs on March 6, 2006.
During the hearing, PG&E stated that it was working with the other parties to develop a stipulation regarding the details of how the process and timing for soliciting offers for incremental storage would work. At the conclusion of the hearing, Exhibit 20 was reserved for the stipulation. PG&E distributed the "Pacific Gas and Electric Company Incremental Core Storage Application 05-03-001 Partial Settlement" (Partial Settlement) on January 24, 2006. No one objected to the admission, or to the issues that were resolved in the Partial Settlement. The Partial Settlement shall be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 20.2
On February 9, 2006, TURN filed a motion requesting that it be allowed to late-file two exhibits. The first exhibit was a list of PG&E's city gate gas prices for 1998-2002. The second exhibit was PG&E's system temperature data from January 1, 1998 to January 28, 2006. TURN's motion requested that the exhibits be admitted into evidence before February 17, 2006, the date set for the filing of opening briefs in this proceeding. In a February 10, 2006 e-mail note to the service list, the assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) shortened the time for interested parties to file a response to TURN's motion to February 14, 2006. A response in opposition to TURN's motion was filed by PG&E on February 14, 2006. On February 15, 2006, the ALJ sent an e-mail note to the service list granting TURN's request to admit the list of city gate prices into evidence as Exhibit 21, and denied TURN's request to admit PG&E's system temperature data into evidence.
1 The Office of Ratepayer Advocates is now known as the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA).
2 The issue of whether the Commission should adopt the stipulations that were reached in the Partial Settlement is discussed later in this decision.
