4. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Anne E. Simon in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with § 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments are allowed pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Opening comments were filed on May 26, 2009 by CEERT, DRA, GPI, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and Shell Energy North America (US) L.P. Reply comments were filed on June 1, 2009 by PG&E, SCE, and TURN.

The comments and reply comments have been carefully considered and some changes to the PD have been made in response to them. The changes have been made in keeping with the purpose of the PD to provide more efficient RPS contracting processes for utilities, not to make major changes in RPS procurement rules.

Overall, parties express most concern about the price benchmark for very short term contracts. Acknowledging the parties' observations that the index price for conventional power can and does vary significantly, the very short-term price benchmark has been revised to be 150% of the index price. The absolute price limit of 90% of the 10-year MPR remains in place, to protect ratepayers from transitory very high index prices that yield excessively high very short-term price benchmarks. The price limit of 90% of the 10-year MPR has been revised to expire on December 31, 2011, unless the Commission acts on it prior to that date.

Several parties also were concerned that the PD's requirement that a generation facility be in operation for at least a month was unnecessarily restrictive, though DRA found it too lenient and TURN thought it appropriate. Taking into consideration the Commission's recent discussion of project viability in D.09-06-018, the PD has been revised to allow contracts with facilities that are within six months of commercial operation to be included in the fast-track process.

PG&E's proposal for aligning the requirements for an IE report with those set out in D.08-11-008 for conventional procurement is adopted in part.

PG&E also presents a modification to the pilot project proposal put forth in its 2009 RPS procurement plan. Because it was made so late in the process, PG&E's new proposal is not adopted. If, after experience with the fast-track procedures adopted in this decision, PG&E is still interested in proposing a pilot project, it would be free to do in its next RPS procurement plan.

Outside the scope of the PD are CEERT's suggestion for changes in the method of publication of resolutions on advice letters submitting RPS contracts for Commission approval and GPI's suggestion that the long-term MPR include a renewable adder. Suggestions by several parties for workshops or other actions by Energy Division staff are more appropriately directed to the Director of Energy Division.

Some changes to the PD have been made to improve clarity and consistency and to correct minor errors.