STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
May 6, 2003 Agenda ID #2166
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION (A.) 01-12-042 AND A.01-12-050
This is the draft decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Wong. It will not appear on the Commission's agenda for at least 30 days after the date it is mailed. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later.
When the Commission acts on the draft decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.
Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the draft decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." These rules are accessible on the Commission's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.
/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN
Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ANG:sid
Attachment
ALJ/JSW/sid DRAFT Agenda ID #2166
Ratesetting
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ WONG (Mailed 5/6/2003)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Tenby, Inc. for Modification or Clarification of Resolution No. G-3304. |
Application 01-12-042 (Filed December 21, 2001) |
|
Application of Southern California Gas Company (U 904 G) for Modification or Clarification of Resolution G-3304. |
Application 01-12-050 (Filed December 13, 2001) |
OPINION REGARDING THE APPLICATIONS TO
MODIFY OR CLARIFY RESOLUTION G-3304
Summary
Today's decision addresses the applications filed by Tenby, Inc. (Tenby) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) to modify or clarify Resolution G-3304 (Resolution). Effective December 21, 2000, the Resolution suspended the transfer of customers to core subscription service or other core service schedules except for those customers whose gas service providers were no longer offering service in California.
Tenby contends that it entered into a contract with SoCalGas on December 7, 2000 for GN-10 service beginning on January 1, 2001, and that the Resolution therefore does not apply to Tenby. SoCalGas contends that no written contract was executed by SoCalGas granting Tenby's request, and that the Resolution prevented SoCalGas from allowing Tenby to take such service.
The Commission generally disfavors issuing a decision in response to a request for declaratory relief or for an advisory opinion, unless extraordinary circumstances exist or if the matter is of widespread public interest. Tenby and SoCalGas have not convinced us that extraordinary circumstances exist or that this matter is of widespread public interest which warrants the issuance of a decision which modifies or clarifies Resolution G-3304. In addition, since Tenby's civil action is seeking an award of damages from SoCalGas, that is a remedy that can only be obtained in Superior Court. Accordingly, the applications to clarify or modify the Resolution are denied.
