V. Position of SDG&E Regarding Application
of the Modified SRAC Formula
SDG&E takes no position regarding whether SRAC prices during the Remand Period were either correct or incorrect. SDG&E rejects the use of WACOG in determining a gas index in SRAC, as it believes employing WACOG does not comply with § 390(b). SDG&E also rejects the PG&E/TURN/ORA proposal to use basin prices plus transportation to determine a border gas price, as used by FERC in the MMCP. SDG&E contends that this method may not correctly price gas at the border thus resulting in a potential disincentive to QF generation, and possible conflicts with § 390(b). SDG&E recommends that any SRAC refunds only be applied to QFs receiving SRAC prices, and not to QFs under fixed price contracts during the Remand Period. Finally, SDG&E objects to PG&E's February 7, 2003 request that the Commission take either official notice of, or admit directly into evidence, certain news articles and a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) order dated December 18, 2002; SDG&E argues that no legal basis has been established enabling the Commission to take either official notice or admit these documents into evidence.47
47 Subsequent to PG&E's February comments, PG&E filed a motion and other documents in its February 17, 2004, comments. These later documents provide a more timely and detailed analysis of gas manipulation during the Remand Period. As this motion is granted, it is unnecessary to consider the legal basis of PG&E's February 2003 request regarding news articles and the CFTC order.
