and community member comments at the public participation hearing (PPH) held in this proceeding, raised concerns about fire risks and the safety of the Facility. The environmental review undertaken in this proceeding is limited to the impacts created by the Project, and treats existing conditions as the “baseline” for measuring those impacts. The EIR for the Project does not evaluate ongoing (baseline) risks associated with the existing Facility that do not result from the Project or make recommendations to mitigate those risks. Because the existing fire risks and operational safety concerns raised by Rogers and Herman are not addressed in the EIR, these issues were considered in the CPCN portion of this proceeding. In particular, this proceeding considered whether rules adopted in Rulemaking (R.) 08-11-005 are adequate to ensure the safe operation of the Facility that is located in a Very High fire hazard severity zone, and whether any requirements (in addition to any mitigation measures that may be recommended in the EIR) should be imposed in order to improve the safety of the Facility’s operations and to reduce existing fire risks. Parties’ Positions The BCAP Phase 1 Settlement Parties filed a joint response recommending expeditious approval of the Application because, according to them, replacing the Aliso Canyon compressor station and adding storage injection capacity to meet increased demand during peak periods is consistent with SoCalGas’s obligation to serve its customers, increases reliability of the SoCalGas transportation system, and helps to reduce natural gas commodity cost volatility. The Rogers and Herman protests point to the Facility as the source of the 2008 Sesnon Fire and request, among other things, that conditions be imposed on
TABLE 3 Storage Injection Capacity (MMcfd) Current MMcfd Current % Proposed MMcfd* Post Replacement MMcfd Post Replacement % Core Storage 369 43.4% 19 388 39.0% Balancing 200 23.5% 0 200 20.1% Unbundled Storage 281 33.1% 126 407 40.9% Total 850 100.0% 145 995 100.0% * Per D.08-12-020, core will be allocated an additional 4 Bcf of inventory capacity which is an increase of approximately 5%; and 5% of the core’s current injection capacity is 19 MMcfd. Pursuant to D.08-12-020 (the 2009 BCAP Phase 1 decision), incremental storage injection capacity must be allocated to core customers of SoCalGas and SDG&E proportionally to match the growth in core inventory capacity; the balancing function must remain at its current injection capacity; and remaining injection capacity must be allocated to the unbundled storage program. Table 3 shows the allocation of injection capacity. Applying the allocation of post-replacement injection capacities from Table 3 to the post-replacement storage injection revenue requirement (which includes the amounts from Table 2 as well as existing injection costs) results in the cost increases to Core Storage, Balancing, and Unbundled Storage. The resulting rate impacts reflecting SoCalGas’ proposed revenue requirement are shown in Table 4 of the Application and reproduced below. TABLE 4 Allocation of Revenue Requirement and Rate Impact $millions and $/therm Rate Impact is in comparison to current rates Year Revenue Requirement (a) Core Storage (b) Load Balancing (b) Unbundled Storage (b) Core Rate Impact ( c) NonCore Rate Impact ( c) 2013 $22.8 $7.8 $3.8 $11.2 $0.00328 $0.00051 2014 $29.6 $10.5 $5.1 $14.0 $0.00331 $0.00052 2015 $28.6 $10.1 $4.9 $13.6 $0.00319 $0.00050 2016 $27.4 $9.7 $4.7 $13.1 $0.00304 $0.00048 2017 $26.3 $9.2 $4.5 $12.6 $0.00291 $0.00046