Assignment of Proceeding
Geoffrey F. Brown is the Assigned Commissioner and John S. Wong is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. SoCalGas transported gas to Tenby's facility pursuant to the Master Services Contract.
2. Resolution G-3304 was adopted by the Commission on December 21, 2000.
3. Ordering Paragraph 2 of the Resolution ordered SoCalGas "to suspend transfers of customers to core subscription service, Schedule G-CS or applicable core service schedules except for those customers where their gas service provider is no longer offering service in California."
4. Ordering Paragraph 3 of the Resolution ordered SoCalGas to file a new advice letter with tariff language that implements the provision of Ordering Paragraph 2 within seven days, and stated that the effective date of that advice letter would be December 21, 2000, subject to the Energy Division's review of the advice letter for compliance with the Resolution.
5. Tenby filed a civil lawsuit against SoCalGas in Los Angeles Superior Court on September 25, 2001.
6. The ALJ ruling of March 7, 2002 directed the parties to file a response as to why the Commission should proceed with hearings or a decision clarifying or modifying the Resolution, when that issue is central to the pending civil lawsuit.
7. Tenby and SoCalGas filed responses and replies to the March 7, 2002 ALJ ruling.
8. On April 22, 2003, the stay of the civil lawsuit was lifted and the matter was set for trial in September 2003.
9. Tenby's lawsuit against SoCalGas and Sempra involves, among other things, Tenby's purchase of natural gas in January 2001 due to SoCalGas' alleged breach of contract to provide Tenby with GN-10 service during that month.
10. Tenby requests that the Commission clarify or modify the Resolution to state that anyone who elected to take core subscription or core service from SoCalGas prior to the effective date of the Resolution is not barred from taking such service.
11. SoCalGas requests that the Commission interpret the Resolution to prevent a noncore customer who elected core subscription or core service before the effective date of the Resolution from transferring to core or core subscription service beginning on January 1, 2001.
12. These proceedings are of some public interest because the Resolution affects the rights and obligations of the parties during December 2000 and January 2001, and the issue of whether SoCalGas had to provide core service to Tenby in January 2001 is a key issue in the pending civil lawsuit.
13. Tenby provided SoCalGas with a 20-day notice to switch on December 7, 2000, as required by its contract.
14. Tenby's notice occurred prior to the adoption and effective date of Resolution G-3304.
1. The Commission generally disfavors issuing a decision that provides declaratory relief or that is advisory in nature.
2. The applications of both SoCalGas and Tenby are requesting that the Commission interpret the Resolution in a way that will affect the pending Superior Court action involving Tenby's purchase of natural gas from an entity other than SoCalGas in January 2001.
3. The applications of Tenby and SoCalGas to clarify or modify Resolution G-3304 are requests for declaratory relief.
4. Although the Commission generally disfavors issuing a decision in response to a request for declaratory relief or for an advisory opinion, the Commission has made some exceptions when extraordinary circumstances exist, or if the matter is of widespread public interest.
5. Public Utilities Code Section 1759 prevents a court from reviewing, reversing, correcting, or annulling an order or decision of the Commission.
6. An opinion that clarifies our view of the Resolution and which resolves an actual controversy will be of benefit to the Superior Court because the Commission's intent behind the Resolution can be carried out.
7. The wording of Resolution G-3304 did not invalidate the transfer of a noncore customer to core service or core subscription service if such notice of transfer, such as Tenby's, was provided prior to the effective date of Resolution G-3304.
8. Resolution G-3304 is clarified as discussed above in the context of the specific facts presented.
9. There is no need to make any changes to the wording of Resolution
G-3304.
10. Tenby's data request to SoCalGas is moot.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The applications of Southern California Gas Company and Tenby, Inc. to clarify Resolution G-3304 are granted as discussed in this decision, and all other relief sought in the applications are denied.
2. Application (A.) 01-12-042 and A.01-12-050 are closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
