3. Procedural History
The Commission opened this OIR on January 22, 2004. Prior to opening the OIR, the Commission, in conjunction with the California Energy Commission (CEC), hosted a two-day workshop in December 2003 entitled "Natural Gas Market Outlook 2006-2016." Various participants made presentations at the workshop about California's natural gas needs in the coming years.
In accordance with the schedule set forth in the OIR, the Phase I proposals were filed in February 2004. Phase I proposals were filed by PG&E, Southwest, Lodi Gas Storage, L.L.C. (Lodi),2 and SDG&E and SoCalGas, the latter two filing jointly. Thirty-two comments on various aspects of the four proposals were filed.3 This was followed by the filing of seventeen reply comments.4
The scoping memo and ruling (scoping memo) for Phase I was issued by the assigned Commissioners on June 18, 2004. The scoping memo determined that no evidentiary hearings would be needed on the Phase I issues because only policy issues are to be addressed.5 Consistent with Rule 14.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Phase I policy determinations addressed in today's decision are based upon a review of the Phase I proposals and the numerous comments and reply comments that have been filed in this proceeding.
The scoping memo also solicited additional comments and reply comments on some supplemental LNG access issues, as discussed herein. Those comments and reply comments were filed on July 2, 2004 and July 13, 2004, respectively.
2 Although Lodi was not named in the OIR as a Respondent, it submitted a proposal regarding the "value and appropriate use of in-state storage." (Lodi Proposal, p. 1.) 3 Comments were filed by Alberta Department of Energy (Alberta), BHP Billiton LNG International Inc. (Billiton), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Coral Energy Resources LP (Coral), Crystal Energy LLC (Crystal), California Department of General Services (DGS), California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA) and California Cogeneration Council (CCC), City of Palo Alto, Duke Energy Marketing America and Duke Energy North America (Duke), El Paso and Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave), Exxon Mobil Gas & Power Marketing Company (Exxon Mobil), GTNC, Indicated Producers, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) and Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company (Questar), Kinder Morgan Inc. (Kinder Morgan), Lodi , Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Northern California Generation Coalition (NCGC), Occidental Energy Marketing Inc. (Occidental), the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), PG&E, Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy (RACE), Sempra Energy LNG Corp. (Sempra LNG), Southern California Edison Company (Edison), Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC), SDG&E and SoCalGas, Sound Energy Solutions Inc. (SES), TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada), Transwestern, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Watson Cogeneration Company (Watson) and Calpine Corporation (Calpine), and Wild Goose Storage Inc. (Wild Goose). Wyoming Natural Gas Pipeline Authority (WNGPA) distributed a motion to late-file its comments but did not file this motion with the Docket Office. 4 Reply Comments were filed by Billiton, Coral, CMTA and CCC, Duke, GTNC, Kern River and Questar, Lodi, ORA, PG&E, RACE, Sempra LNG, SCGC, SDG&E and SoCalGas, Transwestern, TURN, Watson and Calpine, and Wild Goose. 5 The scoping memo noted that the Commission would decide in the decision whether certain issues raised by the parties require evidentiary hearings.
