4. SCE Opposition to Clean Coalition Motion

While SCE's main objections are procedural, SCE also generally opposes Clean Coalition's motion. We respond to SCE's specific objections below. The procedural and general objections are addressed here.

SCE claims that Clean Coalition overstates the urgency of the contract modifications. We disagree. The federal cash grants expire at the end of the year. Prompt modification is needed to enable producers to ensure they qualify for these grants.

SCE also claims that Clean Coalition wants to help producers to lock into an above-market price for projects rather than wait for the Commission in this proceeding to determine pricing reform. We disagree. In D.07-07-027, the Commission ordered the IOUs to offer standard tariffs and contracts to all customers at the Market Price Referent (MPR) and determined that the MPR was a reasonable price to pay the Feed-in Tariff producers. Under D.07-07-027, the IOUs are required to offer the Feed-in Tariff under the MPR until their allocated capacity is fully subscribed or until the Commission modifies the program through another decision.⁶ Neither has occurred.

SCE also claims that Clean Coalition's request is procedurally flawed because the SCE's CREST PPA, which was approved via a Commission resolution, can only be modified through an action by the full Commission, such as another resolution or a decision in response to a petition for modification. We agree with SCE that Clean Coalition's request to rely on the advice letter process to modify the CREST PPA is procedurally inappropriate. The CREST PPA was approved by the full Commission via Resolution E-4137 and, therefore, must be modified via an action by the full Commission. This decision achieves this requirement.

We disagree with SCE that a petition for modification must be filed. A petition for modification would be an appropriate procedural vehicle, but other appropriate processes exist as well, including today's decision. Today's decision relies on the record evidence from this proceeding. Moreover, we have notified all interested parties related to Resolution E-4137 of our intention to consider modifications to the CREST PPA. This notice was provided in the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling dated September 12, 2011, and notice was provided in conjunction with the service of the proposed decision herein.⁷ In short, all potential interested parties have had notice of our intention to act on this matter and have had the opportunity to be heard. We also considered the comments and reply comments received on the proposed decision mailed on October 11, 2011.

For these reasons, we conclude that our decision today, together with the September 12, 2011 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling, is procedurally appropriate for addressing the motion by Clean Coalition.

⁶ While SCE sought rehearing of D.07-07-027 on several matters, it did not challenge the Market Price Referent (MPR) determination in that decision. See D.08-02-010, Order Modifying Decision (D.) 07-07-027 and Denying Rehearing of the Decision, as Modified (February 14, 2008).

⁷ Service of this decision will be provided to the electronic service list for General Order 96-B, attached hereto as Attachment A, and the electronic service list for this proceeding. Entities on the General Order 96-B service list that seek future notices relevant to this issue must formally place their name on the service list for R.11-05-005.