3. Procedural History and Identity of Moving Parties

3.1. A.01-06-029 and A.06-05-033

Joint Petitioners comprise Wild Goose, Niska Gas Storage, Carlyle/Riverstone II, Carlyle/Riverstone III, and SemGroup. Joint Petitioners filed separate, but essentially identical petitions for modification of D.02-07-036 (in A.01-06-029) and of D.06-11-019 (in A.06-05-033) on March 2, 2007. No protests or responses were filed. Previously, in comments on the proposed decision adopted as D.06-11-019, the same parties for the first time sought revision of the reporting requirements adopted earlier by D.02-07-036. The Commission declined to consider the request raised by the comments and directed the parties to petition for modification of the relevant decisions if they wished to pursue changes to the reporting requirements.

3.2. A.06-09-016 and A.06-09-021

The Commission consolidated A.06-09-016 and A.06-09-021 for hearing, as necessary, and for decision and by D.07-05-061 resolved all issues but one. The deferred issue concerns whether Carlyle/Riverstone III and Carlyle Partners IV, two of the Joint Applicants in that consolidated docket, should be granted the same, partial exemption from § 852 as Goldman Sachs and AIG. As already noted, Carlyle/Riverstone III and Carlyle Partners IV are two of the investors in Knight Holdco, the owner of KMI, which in turn holds effective control over SFPP and Calnev. In addition, Carlyle/Riverstone III, together with Carlyle/Riverstone II, have 80% ownership in, and indirect control over, Wild Goose. Carlyle Partners IV is an affiliate of both Carlyle/Riverstone Funds.

The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) negotiated the exemption agreement which D.07-05-061 adopted for Goldman Sachs and AIG but DRA opposed extension of the agreement to Carlyle/Riverstone III and to Carlyle Partners IV. Consumer Federation of California (CFC) opposed granting any exemption from complete compliance with § 852 to all four entities. D.07-06-051 determined that the overlap of the exemption request for the Carlyle entities with the substance of the pending petitions in A.01-06-029 and A.06-05-033, coupled with a lack of notice under § 1708, warranted deferring the issue as to them.

By ruling on July 20, 2007, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) requested information by July 30 regarding the effect upon Carlyle/Riverstone II of extension of the § 852 exemption agreement to Carlyle/Riverstone III and to Carlyle Partners IV. Pursuant to an extension from the ALJ, responses were filed on August 1, 2007.