6. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the Commissioner 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 June 16, 2010, by DRA, NRDC, and SCE, and reply comments were filed on June 21, 2010, by each of those parties. On August 31, 2010, NRDC and SCE filed a joint motion for leave to file joint, additional comments. By ruling on September 2, 2010, the ALJ granted the motion, directed that the joint, additional comments be filed, and authorized other parties to file additional comments on or before September 20, 2010. No other party filed additional comments.

The NRDC/SCE joint comments supersede the two parties' prior, individual comments and resolve the significant differences between them. The joint comments suggest three revisions to the proposed decision: (1) modification of the framework for review and recovery of the approximately $178.6 million in capital expenditures at Four Corners at issue; (2) a deferral until later in the GRC for submission of SCE's report on its feasibility study regarding future ownership options; and, (3) clarification regarding the Commission's pre-approval of any modifications to the current co-tenancy agreements. We find that these proposals have merit and revise the proposed decision accordingly, though in the interests of improved clarity we do not adopt, verbatim, all of the language NRDC and SCE propose.

As noted above, DRA did not comment on the NRDC/SCE joint comments. While DRA's initial and reply comments reflect agreement with portions of the proposed decision, DRA reiterates that SCE should not be permitted to recover any capital expenditures made during the period between the resolution of this petition and January 1, 2012, and that we should open an investigation to examine further why SCE's petition, as initially filed, was not more complete. DRA's comments do not establish legal or factual error and we make no changes in response to its comments.

Finally, to improve consistency, clarity, and to correct typographical errors and omissions, we make other, nonsubstantive revisions throughout the proposed decision.