As discussed above, DRA expresses concerns over two potential procedural defects with the PG&E Petition. First, DRA notes that the petition for modification was not filed within one year of the effective date of D.07-05-029, which adopted this contract, and asserts that the delay is not sufficiently justified in the Petition. Second, DRA also suggests that the appropriate venue for PG&E to request a modification to this contract was in its demand response application filed in 2008. In response to the first issue, PG&E observes that D.08-06-015 modifying D.07-05-029 specifically directs PG&E to submit further requests (if any) to modify its demand response contracts using a Petition for Modification. PG&E further argues that the Petition does explain why the petition could not have been filed within one year of the original decision, since the contract modification was not reached until February 2009. Similarly, PG&E states that the program modification was not included in its 2008 demand response application because the contract amendment was not agreed upon until after that application was filed.10
The procedural objections raised by DRA are not persuasive, and we decline to summarily dismiss this Petition without analyzing its substance. Not only does D.08-06-015 encourage PG&E to file future amendments to its aggregator contracts adopted in D.07-05-029 as Petitions for Modification of that decision, but D.09-08-027 issued in the utilities' demand response applications supports this policy, allowing the utilities to request amendments to the aggregator contracts approved in that decision through either petitions for modification of that decision or through new applications. PG&E's explanation that the agreement to expand this contract was not completed until February 2009 adequately explains why the PG&E request was not filed by May 2008 or included in A.08-06-003. We will consider the PG&E Petition based on its substance.
10 PG&E Reply to DRA Protest 3/26/2009 (Reply), at 9-10.