5. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Minkin 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. Nevada Hydro, SCE, EVMWD, and FRONTLINES filed timely opening comments. SCE and FRONTLINES filed timely reply comments. We have considered the factual, technical, and legal concerns delineated in the comments and have made changes, as appropriate, in the decision. We have given little weight to comments that merely reiterate or reargue positions

As SCE suggests, we have clarified that we are referring to "independent" transmission owners in this decision.

Nevada Hydro contends that the decision is in error because we require CAISO approval of the project "or efforts to obtain same as a precondition to a CPCN application."⁸ Both SCE and FRONTLINES state that Nevada Hydro has mischaracterized the Large Generator Interconnection Procedure at the CAISO, among other concerns. As stated above, Nevada Hydro must explain how the CAISO is considering the project and must further demonstrate how it will recover costs and the impact of those costs on California ratepayers. This is a reasonable requirement.

Nevada Hydro disputes the need for a technical conference as a pre-condition to filing a new application. We do not need to have an open proceeding here for Nevada Hydro to convene such a workshop. Indeed, such efforts could help to both resolve technical issues prior to an application being filed and could lead to a more efficient, less contentious proceeding. While this proceeding will be closed, the service list remains accessible on our web site.

We decline to add additional requirements to the workshop process, as FRONTLINES suggests. Parties have the ability to ask specific questions of Nevada Hydro at the workshops. While FRONTLINES suggests that Nevada Hydro should provide a 45-day notice period for the workshops, we note that Rule 13.1(a) of our Rules of Practice and Procedure require proper notice of hearings to be provided "not less than 10 days before the date of hearing." We urge Nevada Hydro to provide as much notice as possible, since such actions will recognize community values and concerns, but we will not impose further requirements.

Nevada Hydro also contends that requiring the payment of authorized intervenor compensation claims before the Commission accepts a new application will unfairly delay any new application. As discussed above, we expect Nevada hydro to honor all commitments, including prompt payment of approved intervenor compensation claims. Approved claims must be paid within 30 days of our orders authorizing such payment and must include any interest payments so ordered. To the extent that claims are outstanding, Nevada Hydro must file a status report in the new docket. All reimbursable contract invoices must be paid on a timely basis and must be paid in full before a new application will be accepted for filing.

⁸ Nevada Hydro Comments to Proposed Decision at 7.