3. Late-Filed Exhibits
Three exhibits were received from parties after hearings. At hearings, TURN suggested entering a filing from the demand response Rulemaking (R.) 07-01-041 into the record as an exhibit to provide context for understanding the cost effectiveness analyses contained in the applications. In the Guidance Ruling dated February 27, 2009, the applicants were directed to use the cost effectiveness framework filed by parties in R.07-01-041 in November of 2007 as the basis of their cost effectiveness calculations on existing and proposed programs.7 No parties objected to the inclusion of this "Consensus Framework" as an exhibit in this proceeding to be served after the end of hearings, and the exhibit was identified as Exhibit 417. TURN served the exhibit on parties to this proceeding, and no parties have subsequently objected to including this exhibit in the record. Exhibit 417 is hereby received.
During a supplemental day of hearings held on San Francisco Community Power and Transphase issues on January 20, 2009, ALJ Hecht requested PG&E and SF Power prepare and enter into the record their own analyses of the demand response provided during 2008 by customers enrolled in PG&E's Capacity Bidding Program through SF Power. No parties at hearings objected to admitting these analyses as exhibits after the end of hearings, and the exhibits were numbered 217 (for the PG&E analysis) and 802 (for the SF Power analysis). No parties have subsequently objected to including these exhibits in the record. Exhibits 217 and 802 are hereby received.
The record is composed of all documents that were filed and served on parties. It also includes all testimony and exhibits received at hearing, and the three exhibits described above that were identified at the hearings and served on all parties in response to direction at the hearing. Also, the ALJ sealed as confidential various exhibits and filings. We affirm all assigned Commissioner and ALJ rulings in this proceeding. All motions not previously ruled upon or addressed in this decision are denied.
7 Joint Comments Of California Large Energy Consumers Association, Comverge, Inc., Division Of Ratepayer Advocates, Energyconnect, Inc., Enernoc, Inc., Ice Energy, Inc., Pacific Gas And Electric Company (U 39-M), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902-E), Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) And The Utility Reform Network Recommending A Demand Response Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Framework," (sometimes known as the Consensus Framework) filed November 19, 2007, in R.07-01-041.
