11. Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision

The alternate proposed decision of Commissioner Peevey in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and Rule 14.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on May 2, 2007, and reply comments were filed on May 7, 2007. Shell and Equilon raise three objections to the Alternate's conclusion that they have dedicated the 20" Pipeline to public use. We address these in turn.

1. Associated Pipeline controls the present case.

On the contrary, Associated Pipeline is distinguishable from the present case. Associated delivered oil only to itself and did not use buy/sell agreements. Equilon and Shell Trading deliver oil to others and use buy/sell agreements.

2. By providing transportation service to itself or related entities, Shell does not become a common carrier. Chevron is in a separate class from other shippers because Shell inherited an existing contractual relationship with Chevron when it bought the pipeline.

The Alternate does not address the terms on which Shell deals with itself. It concerns only the terms on which Shell makes excess pipeline capacity available to third party shippers. Although Shell inherited the Chevron relationship when it bought the pipeline, Chevron is no different from any other arm's length third party for whom Shell ships oil for a fee.

3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are Insufficient

We concur to a limited degree and have added additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the opinion.