STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
May 14, 2001
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 00-04-031
Enclosed is a draft decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jean Vieth. This item will be on the Commission's agenda at the May 24, 2001 meeting. 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.
Rule 77.7(f)(9) provides for reduction or waiver of the 30-day period for public review and comment when public necessity requires such reduction. We must balance whether the public necessity of adopting an order outweighs the public interest in having the full 30-day review and comment. We are convinced that this item fall under Rule 77.7(f)(9), and for that reason, we established a shortened period for comments on the draft decision.
Parties to the proceeding may serve comments on the draft decision by May 21, 2001 by electronic service, including service on the ALJ, Assistant Chief ALJ Angela Minkin, and the assigned Commissioner, followed by formal filing. No reply comments will be accepted. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages.
/s/ LYNN T. CAREW
Lynn T. Carew, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC:eap
Attachments
ALJ/XJV/t94 DRAFT ITEM 11
5/24/2001
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ VIETH (Mailed 5/14/2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY for Authority Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851 to Sell its Storage Field in Montebello, California. |
Application 00-04-031 (Filed April 20, 2000) |
OPINION APPROVING AMENDED
SETTLEMENT, WITH MINOR CONDITIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Summary 2
2. Procedural Background 3
3. The Montebello Assets 5
4. Overview of the Amended Settlement Terms 6
5. Tests for Approving Amended Settlement Agreements 9
6. Discussion 10
7. Environmental Review 18
8. Conclusion 23
9. Case Categorization and Need for Hearing 24
10. Comments on Draft Decision 24
Findings of Fact 25
Conclusions of Law 27
Order 27
Attachment A
Attachment A-1
1. Summary
By this application, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) seeks authority to dispose of all of the assets which comprise its West Montebello natural gas storage field (Montebello). We review an amended all-party settlement (Amended Settlement), filed on May 3, 2001, which recommends withdrawal and sale to the market of the working gas and cushion gas at Montebello, salvage of other utility property, sale of the abandoned site, and specific ratemaking adjustments. We also review the final mitigated negative declaration (MND), which concludes that this proposal will not result in significant impacts on the environment.
After adopting the final MND, we approve the Amended Settlement, with two minor conditions, one of which is implied in that document already. Thus, within 60 days SoCalGas' customers will begin to realize the sizeable rate reduction which the Amended Settlement provides: approximately $44.1 million allocated in twelve monthly installments over the next year. Approximately $30 million is an estimate of the ratepayer share of the net gain on sale of cushion gas, allocated in accordance with the terms of the Amended Settlement. The other $14.1 million consists of a permanent rate reduction equivalent to the annual costs to SoCalGas of owning, operating, and maintaining Montebello.
The minor conditions on our approval are these:
· SoCalGas shall commence gas withdrawals at Montebello as quickly as safe operating practices will allow.
· Any signatory to the Amended Settlement may petition for modification of this decision to permit an additional rate reduction effective in 2002, if natural gas prices increase above current forecasts such that the estimates of ratepayer gain increase significantly above $30 million.
