5. Comments on Draft Decision

On August 31, 2004, the draft decision was filed and served on parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. AReM, CAISO, Calpine Corporation, CALWEA, CCC, CCSF, CMTA, DENA, DWR, IEP, ORA, PG&E, Powerex, SCE, SDG&E, SEGE, TURN, and WPTF filed comments. AReM, CAISO, IEP, ORA, PG&E, Powerex, SCE, TURN, and WPTF filed replies to comments.

We have made several revisions to the draft decision in response to the comments and replies. Among other things, we have (a) included the entire Workshop Report as an attachment to this decision, (b) made provision for an extension of time for the first-year resource adequacy compliance filings in the event the Phase 2 decision is delayed, (c) clarified our intent regarding the 0.89% limitation on counting demand response for 2-hour demand response products, (d) clarified the discussion of CAISO's baseline deliverability proposal, (e) added to the discussion of the month-ahead forward commitment requirement to indicate our intent to address this requirement further in Phase 2, and (f) added a new section to clarify that resource adequacy requirements and limitations pertain to capacity and are not intended to preclude LSE's from making use of resources for the purpose of meeting the energy requirements of their customers that do not meet resource adequacy requirements.