7. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of ALJ Gottstein in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on April 6, 2005 by California Climate Action Registry, CCSF, NRDC, PG&E, Proctor Engineering, Rita Norton and Associates, SCE, jointly by SDG&E and SoCalGas, TURN and WEM. Reply comments were filed on April 11, 2005 by CCSF, NRDC, ORA, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E/SoCalGas and TURN.

We have carefully reviewed the comments on the draft decision, and make changes and clarifications throughout the decision in response to many of them. In addition, we clarify our expectations regarding the process for developing the required EM&V submittals. In D.05-01-055, we discussed a process whereby Energy Division and CEC staff (Joint Staff) working with IOUs and an "ad hoc technical advisory group" established for this purpose would develop a "joint proposal" for EM&V issues, prior to submitting the draft proposal for public comment at workshops.60 The process we describe today makes it clear that we expect Joint Staff to utilize the technical expertise of IOUs and other experts in developing draft proposals, but places ultimate responsibility on staff for such joint proposals. Our prior decision stated that staff could obtain expert assistance in completing some of its tasks. Today's decision clarifies that, after identifying issues for which expert assistance would be useful, Joint Staff may obtain such expertise via phone calls, in writing or in person, as Joint Staff deems appropriate. Finally, we clarify that Joint Staff should submit their EM&V proposals to the assigned ALJ to be issued via ruling for comment, rather than file them with the Commission's Docket Office, and adopt an expedited review process for their consideration. 60 Ibid. p. 113.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page