ALJ/MPO/TIM/bx1 4/28/2020 FILED 04/28/20 04:59 PM BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Southern California Gas Company with Respect to the Aliso Canyon storage facility and the release of natural gas, and Order to Show Cause Why Southern California Gas Company Should Not Be Sanctioned for Allowing the Uncontrolled Release of Natural Gas from its Aliso Canyon Storage Facility. (U904G) Investigation 19-06-016 E-MAIL RULING DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE MOTION OF THE SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Dated April 28, 2020, at San Francisco, California. /s/ MARCELO POIRIER Marcelo Poirier Administrative Law Judge 335618884 /s/ TIMOTHY KENNEY Timothy Kenney Administrative Law Judge -1- I.19-06-016 ALJ/MPO/TIM/bx1 From: Poirier, Marcelo Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:03 PM To: APatel@semprautilities.com; NPedersen@HanMor.com; Maguirre@amslawyers.com; Gekker, Elena ; Sher, Nicholas ; KMorsony@turn.org; NSheriff@Buchalter.com; VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com; RegRelCpucCases@pge.com; M3PU@pge.com; John.Leslie@Dentons.com; KatieJorrie@dwt.com; kavya@newsdata.com; Kavya@UtilityDive.com; uscontent@reorg-research.com; larry@engeladvice.com; Laura.Genao@sce.com; mvespa@earthjustice.org; ravimk@bladeenergy.com; sgersen@earthjustice.org; SDHarding@iid.com; slinderman@buchalter.com; DWTcpucDockets@dwt.com; kirby.bosley@edftrading.com; mfrazier@bradley.com; Paul.Gendron@edftrading.com; margaret@mfelts.com; KButler@PH.LAcounty.gov; Marlon.SantaCruz@LADWP.com; PLee@Counsel.LAcounty.gov; priscila.kasha@ladwp.com; Rodney.Luck@ladwp.com; SKuhn@Counsel.laCounty.gov; Ly, Christina ; DBarrett@SempraUtilities.com; La Cour, Elizabeth ; JEgan@SempraUtilities.com; JFohrer@SoCalGas.com; Lsarkisyan@SoCalGas.com; Epuna, Matthewson ; MHovsepian@SempraUtilities.com; RDiaz@socalgas.com; SClorfeine@SempraUtilities.com; SMortazavi@SoCalGas.com; tcarman@semprautilities.com; GHealy@SempraUtilities.com; JLsalazar@SempraUtilities.com; RCavalleri@SempraUtilities.com; Giovanni.SaarmanGonzalez@mto.com; Kevin.Allred@mto.com; rothenergy@gmail.com; tdaquila@cityofpasadena.net; Douglass@EnergyAttorney.com; cchwang@burbankca.gov; HPandey@ci.burbank.ca.us; MByrnes@amslawyers.com; MSeverson@amslawyers.com; liddell@EnergyAttorney.com; John.Leslie@dentons.com; CentralFiles@SempraUtilities.com; Epasos@iid.com; alaurie@iid.com; scbarber@iid.com; Ryan.Baron@bbklaw.com; DSandidge@ParrisLawyers.com; POliver@ParrisLawyers.com; Kenney, Timothy ; Bach, Alan ; Yip-Kikugawa, Amy C. ; Durvasula, Anand ; Fisher, Arthur (Iain) ; Holzschuh, Dale A. ; Gruen, Darryl ; Peck, David B. ; Ezekwo, Godson ; Spencer, Jean ; Koltz, Jonathan ; Shea, Karen M. ; Morgans, Lucy ; Poirier, Marcelo ; Divina, Marianne ; Taul, Matthew ; Botros, Mina ; Shapson, Mitchell ; Skinner, Nathaniel ; Li, Pui-Wa ; Goldberg, Sandy ; Simon, Sean A. ; George, Simi R. ; Holzschuh, Tyler ; Hayley@turn.org; BFinkelstein@turn.org; TLong@turn.org; wbrenc@fenwick.com; bellis@buchalter.com; lrafii@buchalter.com; MCade@Buchalter.com; pejman.moshfegh@morganlewis.com; ryan.hoyler@morganlewis.com; Teresa.Reeddippo@mto.com; FJackson.Stoddard@MorganLewis.com; AnnaFero@dwt.com; DavidHuang@dwt.com; SSMyers@att.net; Benjamin.Bodell@bbklaw.com; cathy@barkovichandyap.com; cmkehrein@ems-ca.com Cc: ALJ_Support ID ; ALJ Docket Office ; ALJ Process -2- I.19-06-016 ALJ/MPO/TIM/bx1 Subject: Investigation 19-06-016 - Email Ruling Denying, Without Prejudice, the Motion of the Safety and Enforcement Division for an Order to Show Cause Service List for Investigation 19-06-016: This Email Ruling denies, without prejudice, the Motion of the Safety and Enforcement Division Requesting the Commission Issue an Order to Show Cause Against Southern California Gas Company as to Why It Should Not Be Sanctioned for Being in Contempt of a Commission Subpoena and Violating Rule 1.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (hereafter, "Motion" or "Motion for Order to Show Cause ("OSC")). Background The Commission's Safety and Enforcement Division ("SED") filed its Motion for OSC on February 21, 2020. Southern California Gas Company ("SoCalGas") filed a response opposing SED's Motion on March 9, 2020. There were no other responses to SED's Motion. SED's Motion pertains to a subpoena that SED served on SoCalGas on October 22, 2019. The subpoena directed SoCalGas to appear at the Commission's San Francisco office on November 1, 2019, to provide a deposition on the subject matters identified in the subpoena. On or about October 30, 2019, SoCalGas informed SED that SoCalGas intended to file a motion to quash SED's subpoena and that SoCalGas would not appear at the deposition on November 1, 2019. On November 1, 2019, SoCalGas filed a motion to quash SED's subpoena. The motion was denied in a ruling issued on December 30, 2019. On February 21, 2020, SED filed its Motion for OSC wherein SED requests that the Commission issue an order to show cause as to why SoCalGas, by its failure to appear at the deposition on November 1, 2019, should not be sanctioned for being in contempt of a Commission subpoena and violating Rule 1.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rule 1.1"). -3- I.19-06-016 ALJ/MPO/TIM/bx1 The Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling ("Scoping Memo") dated September 26, 2019, is relevant to resolving SED's Motion for OSC. The Scoping Memo directed SED to serve opening testimony on November 22, 2019, that included the following: Identify all violations alleged by SED of the Public Utilities Code, Commission General Orders or decisions, or other applicable regulations with respect to the SS-25 incident and the Blade Report, including the uncontrolled release of natural gas from Aliso Canyon; SoCalGas’s maintenance and operation of Aliso Canyon and SoCalGas’s related recordkeeping practices; and SoCalGas’s cooperation with SED and Blade. (Scoping Memo at page 9. Underline added.) Consistent with the Scoping Memo, SED's testimony served on November 22, 2019, alleged that SoCalGas's failure to appear at the deposition on November 1, 2019, constituted a failure to cooperate with SED and, therefore, a violation of Public Utilities Code Section 451 ("Section 451"). (SED Testimony at pages 6 and 66-67.) Ruling Pursuant to the Scoping Memo, the appropriate time and procedural vehicle for SED to allege violations regarding SoCalGas's failure to appear at the deposition on November 1, 2019, was SED's testimony served on November 22, 2019. SED followed this procedure by alleging in its testimony that SoCalGas's failure to appear at the deposition violated Section 451. SED's Motion for OSC filed on February 21, 2020, requests that the Commission issue an order to show cause as to why SoCalGas, by its failure to appear at the deposition on November 1, 2019, should not be sanctioned for being in contempt of a Commission subpoena and violating Rule 1.1. The requested sanction is in addition to the alleged violation of Section 451 in SED's testimony served on November 22, 2019. SED's Motion for OSC does not explain why SED did not request the sanction in its testimony served on November 22, 2019, as contemplated by -4- I.19-06-016 ALJ/MPO/TIM/bx1 the Scoping Memo. Therefore, this Email Ruling finds that SED has not demonstrated good cause to grant its Motion. For the preceding reasons, SED's Motion for OSC is denied without prejudice. The Commission’s Docket Office shall formally file this ruling. It Is So Ruled. Dated April 28, 2020, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Marcelo Poirier Administrative Law Judge /s/ Timothy Kenney Administrative Law Judge Marcelo L. Poirier Administrative Law Judge California Public Utilities Commission marcelo.poirier@cpuc.ca.gov -5- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)