6. Procedural History and Miscellaneous Procedural Matters
Applicants filed A.06-09-016 on September 18, 2006 and A.06-09-021, on September 22, 2006. On October 23, 2006, Indicated Shippers filed a Protest to A.06-09-016, which among other things sought consolidation of the Section 854 Application with C.97-04-024 et al., in which Indicated Shippers and other pipeline customers seek rate refunds from the pipeline utilities. Section 854 Applicants filed a Reply on November 2, 2006. At the prehearing conference held on January 10, 2007, the ALJ determined that consolidation with C.97-04-024 et al. was neither necessary to fair resolution of either docket, nor administratively efficient, and she denied the request. However, the ALJ determined, and the parties concurred, that A.06-09-016 and A.06-09-021 should be consolidated in a single docket for hearings, as necessary, and for decision. Section 854 Applicants filed an Amendment to Application on January 23, 2007 (to remedy certain inadvertent omissions discussed at the PHC) and the Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo issued on January 23, 2007.
By separate motions filed respectively on January 19 and January 25, 2007, CFC and ConocoPhillips requested party status; their motions were granted by ALJ ruling on February 1, 2007.32 Evidentiary hearing followed on February 21-13, 2007. The parties filed briefs on March 19 and reply briefs on April 2, 2007, whereupon this consolidated docket was submitted for decision. On April 10, 2007 the Commission held oral argument pursuant to Section 1701.3(d). By ruling on March 9, 2007 the ALJ set aside submission to receive "late-filed" Ex. 13-19 in evidence and then resubmitted this consolidated docket. As noted in footnotes 7 and 11, above, we reopened the record to accept "late-filed" Ex. 20-21 and Ex. 126 in evidence and then resubmitted this docket. See Section 6 of today's decision for resolution of all motions outstanding at the time we mailed the ALJ's proposed decision for comment.
Regarding categorization and other preliminary determinations we note the following: by Resolution ALJ 176-3180 the Commission preliminarily categorized both Applications as ratesetting, and preliminarily determined that hearings were not necessary. The scoping memo confirmed the categorization but changed the "no hearing" designation and the Commission confirmed the change in Resolution ALJ-199.
32 Though tendered for filing before the Scoping Memo issued (and ultimately filed on the date received by the Docket Office), minor technical problems with CFC's motion delayed its processing.
