2. Procedural Background

This application is the successor to Application (A.) 98-01-015, which the Commission dismissed without prejudice in Decision (D.) 99-09-068. The dismissal issued after A.98-01-015 had been submitted for decision following evidentiary hearing and briefing and several months after the Commission opened Investigation (I.)99-04-022 to examine the accuracy of information SoCalGas had supplied the Commission about Montebello, including Montebello's current and anticipated future usefulness to the utility and its ratepayers. D.00-02-024, which modified and clarified D.99-09-068 but denied rehearing, encouraged SoCalGas to refile and noted that, pursuant to Rule 72 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the utility could request incorporation of the evidentiary hearing record from A.98-01-015 in a subsequent proceeding.¹

SoCalGas filed this application together with its Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) on April 20, 2000 and requested ex parte review. Concurrently, SoCal Gas filed a motion requesting incorporation of the record from A.98-01-015 in this proceeding. The Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) both filed timely protests to the application, pointing out, among other things, the procedural and substantive interrelationship of certain issues in I.99-04-022 and in this proceeding. On September 7, 2000, by D.00-09-034, the Commission closed I.99-04-022 after modifying and then adopting a settlement between SoCalGas and the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD).

Thereafter, by ruling dated October 4, 2000, the administrative law judge (ALJ) assigned to this proceeding requested prehearing conference (PHC) statements updating party positions and set a PHC for October 30, 2000. The ALJ ruling also incorporated the exhibits and evidentiary hearing transcripts from A.98-01-015 in this record and directed SoCalGas to provide environmental information that had not been included in its July 24 and September 27 supplements to the PEA.

Several days before the PHC, SoCalGas and ORA held a settlement conference. The settlement conference did not produce consensus but served to narrow the parties' focus. As SoCalGas explained at the PHC, the preferred course of action shifted from disposal of the Montebello facility by auction to the procedure initially suggested in ORA's protest: withdrawal and sale to the market of the working gas and cushion gas at Montebello; salvage of other utility property on the site; and ultimately, sale of the abandoned property. SoCalGas also confirmed that it was in the process of supplying all remaining environmental information.

The Assigned Commissioner's scoping memo issued on November 6, 2000. On November 11, 2000, SoCalGas filed a motion requesting adoption of an all-party settlement (November Settlement). Separately, in compliance with the scoping memo, SoCalGas filed a pleading to confirm the narrowed scope the application and PEA for the purposes of environmental review. By ruling dated November 28, 2000, the ALJ shortened time for comments on the November Settlement, generally, and specifically directed the proponents to address several timing issues bearing upon the interrelationship of environmental review and ratepayer benefits. Both SoCalGas and ORA filed comments on December 6, 2000. No other comments were filed.

On April 25, 2001, an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR) directed the parties to update Appendix A to the November Settlement and to respond to a number of questions about changes in market dynamics and the reasonableness of the November Settlement in light of those changes. In response to the ACR, on May 3, 2001 SoCalGas filed a motion (Amended Settlement Motion) requesting adoption of the Amended Settlement attached thereto. In addition, SoCalGas, ORA and TURN each filed responses to questions in the ruling. No reply comments were filed.