This proceeding had a large number of active participants. Testimony or briefs were submitted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), The Utility Reform Network (TURN),1 the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Green Power Institute (Green Power), the California Independent System Operator (ISO), the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), the California Wind Energy Association (CalWEA), the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), the Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP), the California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA), Ridgewood Olinda, LLC (Ridgewood), Solargenix Energy LLC (Solargenix),2 Chateau Energy, Inc. (Chateau), and Vulcan Power Company (Vulcan).
We appreciate the active participation of so many parties, for while their presence makes the process somewhat more cumbersome, that burden is more than offset by the resulting richness of the record. A significant number of the parties were involved in the legislative process that ultimately resulted in SB 1078, and accordingly bring welcome experience and expertise to the Commission on the issues presented here.
A number of those same parties, however, disagree as to the meaning and purpose of the legislation, and some appear to be attempting to use this proceeding to re-fight battles previously joined at the Legislature. We will not substitute our views for those of the Legislature. Regardless of how certain parties may regard SB 1078, it is now the law, and we will follow it as written.1 In an unusual alignment, SDG&E and TURN agreed upon and sponsored testimony on "Joint Principles" in this proceeding. 2 Solargenix was formerly known as Duke Solar.