7. Comments on Proposed Decisions

The proposed decision of the ALJ was issued on November 3, 2009 pursuant to Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 14.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed by Aglet; AReM; CAISO; Calpine; CUE; Direct Access Customer Coalition (DACC); DRA; Dynegy; IEP; Mirant; PG&E; SCE; Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (Shell); TURN; and WPTF. Additionally, the California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and the Energy Users Forum (collectively, CLECA, et al.) filed joint comments; and AReM, Dynegy, CFCMA, DACC, Safeway Inc., and Sempra Generation (collectively, Joint Parties) filed joint comments. Replies to comments were filed by CAISO, Calpine, DRA, Dynegy, PG&E, SCE, Shell, TURN, and Joint Parties, who were also joined by AES Southland, LLC, California Alliance for Choice in Energy Solutions, Oakley, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

In response to the comments and replies on the proposed decision, the ALJ revised it and reissued it for comment on March 30, 2010. The revised proposed decision gave significant weight to the earlier comments that urged the Commission to continue the year-ahead procurement framework of the resource adequacy program without requiring a multi-year forward procurement obligation, and determined that a multi-year forward procurement obligation should not be mandated at this time.

Comments on the revised proposed decision were filed by AReM, BTG, CAISO, Calpine, CFCMA, Dynegy, Energy Users Forum, IEP, Mirant, PG&E, RRI, and SCE. Replies were filed by BTG, Calpine, CFCMA, Dynegy, and PG&E. In response to the comments and replies, we have made several changes to the text of the revised proposed decision without changing the recommended outcome, which we adopt as our own.