IX. Final Oral Argument and Comments on the Proposed Decision
The proposed decision was mailed on November 18, 2003 for consideration at the Commission's December 18, 2003 agenda. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rules 77.2-77.5, 24 parties33 filed comments on the proposed decision by December 8, 2003 and 11 parties34 filed reply comments by December 15, 2003. We have reviewed the comments filed, and made changes as necessary to improve the technical accuracy of this decision. To the extent comments address issues deferred to our upcoming policy decision, they are not addressed in this decision, but will be addressed as necessary there.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §1701.3(d), a final oral argument was held before a quorum of the Commission on December 2, 2003. Seventeen active parties presented argument. (48 RT 5927-6048.)
33 The following parties filed opening comments: PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ORA, TURN ,CEC, CPA, ISO, City of San Diego, City and County of San Francisco, NRDC, Navaho Nation, AReM, WPTF, IEP, CAC/EPUC, CCC, Joint Parties, Sempra Energy Resources, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), Coalition of California Utility Employees, Duke Energy North America, Vulcan Power Company, and the Local Government Commission. In addition, the Department of Water Resources submitted letter comments. Finally, two entities filed motions to intervene for the purpose of submitting comments; the motion to intervene of the Ratepayers for Affordable Green Energy and the motion to intervene of Constellation NewEnergy, Inc are granted for the purpose of considering the comments each has filed. 34 The following parties filed replies: PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ORA, ISO, Navaho Nation, AReM, IEP, CAC/EPUC, CCC, and Ridgewood Olinda, LLC.
