III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, good cause does not exist for the granting of a rehearing of D.10-12-050. However, we will modify D.10-12-050 to clarify the decision in the manner set in the ordering paragraphs. Accordingly, we deny rehearing of D.10-12-050, as modified.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. D.10-12-050 is modified as follows:

a. On page 12, lines 4-7, the following statement is deleted:

"For these reasons, we will approve the revised Oakley Project despite the fact that this authorization will result in PG&E's procurement of generation capacity in excess of the range of need established by the Commission in D.07-12-052."

b. The first sentence of the first paragraph in Section 4.6 Conclusion on pp. 12-13 is modified to read as follows:

"When the considerations discussed herein are viewed in total, in particular the benefits associated with the amended Oakley Project with the delayed on-line date, it is prudent to allow PG&E to procure the new capacity provided by the project commencing 2016."

c. The third sentence in 5) on page 9 is modified to read as follows:

"As a result, the Commission has in the past approved projects prior to the need determination made in a LTPP proceeding. See e.g., Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company for Approval of Election to Exercise Option to Purchase Power Plant Owned by El Dorado LLC [D.07-11-046] (2007) ___ Cal.P.U.C.3d ___, pp. 4,
7-8 & 23 (slip op.), which approved a power plant for SDG&E while the last LTPP was still being decided.)."

d. Finding of Fact No. 9 is modified to read:

"The Commission has in the past approved projects prior to the need determination made in a LTPP proceeding."

e. Finding of Fact No. 10 on page 14 is modified to remove the words "and beyond."

f. Finding of Fact No. 7 is modified to read as follows:

"Oakley reduces risk that California will have an insufficient supply of generating resources due to a regulatory lag."

g. In the third sentence in the first full paragraph in Section 4.3 on page 9 is modified to read as follows:

"The Commission recognized that the Oakley Project is uniquely viable, with the project sponsor having commenced the permitting process."

h. The following discussion shall be added on page 13:

"8. CARE's Motion to Recuse

On December 9, 2010, CARE filed a motion to recuse Commissioner Bohn and requested a continuance of the matter to the next Commission meeting. The motion alleged that Commission had prejudged the outcome of the proceeding. CARE asserts that the change in the Alternate from a grant to a denial of the petition for modification and an alleged violation of Bagley-Keene notice requirements demonstrated that Commissioner Bohn had had "the kind of unalterably closed mind necessary to require recusal." (Motion to Recuse,
pp. 4-5.) PG&E filed a response on December 13, 2010.

We have reviewed the allegations in this motion and believe that the claims of prejudgment have no merit. Thus, CARE's motion is denied."

2. CARE's motion for leave to file confidential material referenced in its rehearing application is granted.

3. Rehearing of D.10-12-050, as modified, is denied.

4. Application (A) 09-09-021 is hereby closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated: May 26, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

President

TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON

CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL

MARK FERRON

  Commissioners

Commissioner MICHEL PETER FLORIO, being necessarily absent, did not participate.