5. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Yacknin 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 April 4, 2011, by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA); no other comments were filed.

DRA asserts that the proposed decision errs by determining that SCE should have sought its requested relief by application and not by petition for modification. We disagree, and have revised the proposed decision to further clarify the intended purpose and limitations of petitions for modification.

DRA asserts that, by entertaining SCE's request for approval of the amended and restated CPV contract without modifying decisions D.08-04-011 and D.08-09-041 as SCE petitioned, the proposed decision deprives parties and ratepayers of their due process rights of participating in an application, and DRA urges the Commission to approve the contract by modifying the decisions as SCE requested. In effect, DRA would have the Commission disregard parties' and non-parties' attempts, if any, to exercise their rights to participate in this matter as if it were an application; as the proposed decision explains, because SCE seeks relief that that is beyond the scope of the underlying proceedings, that would be a violation of due process. In contrast, by considering whether any party or non-party sought to exercise such rights and approving the amend contract only after determining that, after notice and opportunity, no one did, the proposed decision assures that there has been no violation of due process rights.