6. Comments on Proposed Decision

On May 3, 2010, the proposed decision of ALJ Burton W. Mattson in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3. Comments were filed on May 24, 2010 by SCE, PG&E, SDG&E, and DRA. Reply comments were filed on June 1, 2010 by SCE, SDG&E, and DRA.

We make limited changes to the proposed decision and summarize them here. First, as recommended by SCE, we make similar changes to two resolutions adopted after the date this application was filed.23 The changes to all six resolutions are stated in Attachment A.

We decline to include several PG&E resolutions, as recommended by PG&E. We will address those items in PG&E's Application 10-05-010.

SDG&E suggests that we delete the discussion of active monitoring. We decline to do so. SDG&E says it is unclear what purpose is served by imposing a specific requirement on a single contract term when IOUs are required to demonstrate reasonable administration of an RPS contract in order to secure cost recovery in appropriate proceedings. We agree that reasonable administration is required. This is necessary for not just some, but all, contract terms. The proposed decision already stated that a utility has an affirmative duty to actively monitor and reasonably administer all contract terms, not just STC 6. We make further modifications to more clearly state that an IOU has an affirmative duty to actively monitor and reasonably administer all contract terms, to the extent necessary and reasonable to carry its burden of proof. We retain the active monitoring requirement specifically regarding STC 6 because, for the reasons stated in the decision, STC 6 is a particularly important term. Further, given the modifications that have been made to STC 6 over time, and the concerns relative to various responsibilities as expressed by respondents and parties, the adopted treatment is necessary and reasonable.

We decline to adopt DRA recommendations to change Conclusion of Law 2, or require the utility to notify the Commission by letter if there is any reason to question a particular seller's compliance with STC 6. We need not require notification by letter, for example, since each utility must already keep the Commission informed of relevant matters and changes with respect to the RPS program. Utilities do this through contact with Energy Division, and the filing of periodic reports. If this needs to be made more specific relative to STC 6, the Executive Director or Energy Division Director may require IOUs to notify the Commission by letter.

23 The two resolutions are:

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page