Motion to Modify the Schedule

RACE's March 9, 2004 motion to modify the schedule in this proceeding requests the following changes:

· That the Commission extend the deadline for interested parties to submit their comments by at least one month, i.e., from March 23 to April 29, 2004, so that RACE has adequate time to evaluate the complex, detailed and voluminous filings submitted by the gas utilities.

· That evidentiary hearings should be scheduled.

· That the rulemaking should be modified by reversing Phase I and Phase II so that decisions on policy and rules can be decided before LNG procurement and LNG infrastructure expansion decisions are made on November 1, 2004.

On March 15, 2004, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed a response in opposition to RACE's motion. Kern River states that it is opposed to RACE's motion because the delays which RACE seeks would substantially delay the consideration of important long-term gas issues that need to be resolved. In addition, reversing the order of Phase I and Phase II would frustrate the utilities' efforts to escape the constraints of their existing interstate pipeline firm transportation commitments.

The normal time for responding to RACE's motion to modify the schedule is 15 days, which would have been March 24, 2004. (See Rule 45.) However, since RACE seeks an extension of the March 23, 2004 date for filing comments on the utilities' proposals, a ruling on RACE's motion before March 23, 2004 is warranted. (Rule 45(h).)

RACE's motion to modify the schedule in this proceeding is denied. This rulemaking was instituted by the Commission on January 22, 2004, and the proposals of the utilities were filed on February 24, 2004. RACE and other parties had sufficient opportunity in January and February to seek an extension of the comment period. RACE also seeks to change the order of the Phase I and Phase II issues. However, the rulemaking is clear about the order in which the Phase I and Phase II issues will be considered. RACE could have raised its motion to modify the schedule at an earlier date, rather than choosing to file its motion two weeks before the due date for the filing of comments.

Rule 14.1 provides that a rulemaking is a "formal Commission proceeding in which written proposals, comments, or exceptions are used instead of evidentiary hearings." Also, Rule 14.2 provides that the Commission may elect to apply a rulemaking to a proceeding "to establish rules, regulations, and guidelines for a class of public utilities...." Thus, it is within the Commission's discretion whether evidentiary hearings are needed in a rulemaking.

For the above reasons, RACE's motion to modify the schedule in this proceeding is denied.