8. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 14.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Joint Applicants filed comments on October 30, 2006.

Joint Applicants ask the Commission to adopt the Proposed Decision on November 11, 2006, but seek several minor clarifications and corrections to the text as well as six changes to Ordering Paragraph 7 (and the corresponding text). We make all of the minor changes and four substantive changes to Ordering Paragraph 7 and related text. Because two other changes would modify a prior Commission decision, D.02-07-036, without providing the notice and opportunity to be heard required by §1708, we do not make them in today's decision and need not assess the merits here.

The major changes consist of the following. One, we revise Ordering Paragraph 7 to include a definition of the term "Western North America." We use Joint Applicants' definitional list of states and provinces but add to it the state of Texas, since natural gas from the Permian Basin in Texas flows into California through the Transwestern and El Paso interstate pipelines. Two, we revise Ordering Paragraph 7 to provide that the information required by today's decision may be provided semi-annually, as Joint Applicants request. Three, as Joint Applicants' also request we clarify that the information required by today's decision concerns natural gas production, storage, transportation or distribution as well as electricity generation, transmission and distribution. Four, we clarify that we are not requiring the reporting of passive, minority interests that do not give the investing entity effective control. Rather, the information required by today's decision concerns direct or indirect acquisitions and other investments that result in a controlling interest, including an interest that permits effective direct or indirect control. Limiting reporting only to direct acquisitions or to investments that result in majority ownership, as Joint Applicants request, is inappropriate on this record. Joint Applicants themselves note, for example, that KMI's effective, indirect control over the pipeline utilities SFPP and CALNEV is the result of its control of the general partner and the management delegee of KMI's subsidiary KMEP, even though as of December 31, 2005 KMI held only 15.2% of the total equity of KMI.

We do not modify the term "affiliate" as it is used in Ordering Paragraph 7 or add the statement that Ordering Paragraph 7 supersedes subparts ii and iii of Ordering Paragraph 3(c) of D.02-07-036. In both respects, the Proposed Decision's Ordering Paragraph 7 refers to Ordering Paragraph 3(c) without modifying it. Section 1708 requires notice and opportunity to be heard before the Commission may amend or alter a prior decision. The amended Application expressly states that Wild Goose does not seek to be relieved of any requirements imposed by D.02-07-036 and seeking these changes now, in Comments on the Proposed Decision, is procedurally inappropriate. Joint Applicants should file a Petition for Modification under Rule 16.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure if they wish to pursue these issues.