Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of Commissioner Peevey 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 March 12, 2012 by DRA, FCE, and SCE and reply comments were filed by FCE and SCE on March 19, 2012.

FCE supports the proposed decision, while both SCE and DRA oppose it. SCE states it has already determined that a feasible alternative site is not available. Despite its opposition to the proposed decision, SCE suggests that the Commission modify the proposed decision to allow SCE to consider siting either a CHP or electric-only fuel cell facility. SCE's request to allow siting for an electric-only fuel cell facility is beyond the scope of the petition for modification and is therefore rejected.

DRA comments that the proposed decision fails to specify appropriate budget limits and conditions for the project. This point is well taken and the decision has been modified per DRA's suggestions regarding a budget limit. In addition, we will direct SCE to file a Tier 2 advice letter identifying any alternate site and specific costs for that site, within the existing budget limits.

DRA also comments that the proposed decision is outside the scope of the original decision because it expands potential host sites beyond state universities. We disagree as there is no reason any alternatively sited fuel cell cannot be used for educational purposes as envisioned by the original decision.