9. Comments of Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Sullivan 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 by May 4, 2011 by the Applicant and by PG&E. Reply comments were filed on May 9, 2011 by PG&E.

The Applicant argues that the proposed decision "mischaracterizes the applicant's argument," that "new facts ... warrant [a] proposed modification," and that the "risk management incentive program is not relevant."

PG&E argues in support of the proposed decision.

The proposed decision understood the arguments of the Applicant. In particular, the proposed decision found unpersuasive the Applicant's argument that PG&E should have known about certain technological developments. In addition, the Applicant proffered no facts that warrant a modification of the D.06-07-027 and D.09-03-026.