6. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on January 11, 2010 by Cerritos and SCE, and reply comments were filed on January 19, 2010 by SCE.

In comments to the PD, Cerritos contends that the ILL was a negotiated inital placeholder and should not be considered precedential. It asserts that since the intent of AB 80 was to allow community aggregators "to deliver their share of the project output to customers within their jurisdiction,"²⁷ any load limitation should be based on an energy basis, not peak capacity. Cerritos argues that this intent can only be achieved if it is allowed to sell all of its entitlement share on a retail basis. Consequently, Cerritos maintains that the PD should be revised to state that Cerritos' retail load is limited based on its share of energy from MPP. We find Cerritos' arguments persuasive. Accordingly, this decision has been revised as appropriate.

²⁷ Stats. 2001, Ch. 837, § 1.