4. Comments on Proposed Decision

The PD of ALJ Anne E. Simon 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 September 30, 2010 by AReM, City of Cerritos (Cerritos), PG&E, Shell Energy, Sierra Pacific Power, and SCE. Reply comments were filed on October 5, 2010 by AReM, Cerritos, Mountain Utilities, Shell Energy, SCE, and TURN.

The Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Granting Motion Requesting Comment Period for the Revised Proposed Decision of Commissioner Peevey (October 27, 2010), allowed supplemental comments on Section 3.9 and related ordering paragraphs of Revision 3 of the PD on petitions for modification of D.10-03-021 that was pending in R.06-02-012. These sections relate to the application to ESPs of the temporary limits on use of TRECs for RPS compliance that D.10-03-021 imposes on the large utilities. The ALJ's ruling required that any supplemental comments or supplemental reply comments were to be filed in both R.06-02-012 and R.08-08-009, and served on the service lists in both proceedings. Supplemental comments were filed on November 5, 2010 by AReM, Direct Access Customer Coalition, School Project for Utility Rate Reduction, California State University, Walmart Stores, Commerce Energy,
3 Phases Renewables, and WPTF (jointly) (collectively, joint ESP parties); Cerritos; Independent Energy Producers Association; PG&E; Pilot Power; SDG&E; Shell Energy; SCE; TURN; and Union of Concerned Scientists. Supplemental reply comments were filed on November 12, 2010 by City and County of San Francisco; joint ESP parties; PG&E; PacifiCorp and Sierra Pacific (jointly); Shell Energy; and SCE.

The Commission has reviewed all comments, reply comments, supplemental comments, and supplemental reply comments. We are persuaded that this PD is the appropriate place to address the application to ESPs of the temporary limit on the use of TRECs for RPS compliance, and do so.

The comments and reply comments reveal that the paragraph about the inapplicability of the temporary TRECs usage limit to small utilities created confusion. Since it is not necessary to our decision, we remove this paragraph. We also do not address here the issues raised by Cerritos. Although substantive, those issues are outside the scope of this decision.