13. Comments on Draft Decision

The Draft Decision of ALJ Gottstein in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Cogeneration Association of California and the Energy Producers and Users Coalition jointly filed opening comments. TURN filed reply comments. The following parties filed both opening and reply comments: PG&E, DRA, SCE and SDG&E/SoCalGas (jointly).

In their comments on the draft decision, PG&E, SCE and SDG&E object to the discussion in today's decision of how costs should be treated in the TRC test. PG&E, in particular, argues that the 2006 Update is not the appropriate procedural forum for addressing this issue. We disagree. In D.05-09-043, the Commission clearly articulated the need to investigate the cause of E3 calculator anomalies with respect to the SPM tests in the 2006 Update, the issue was discussed during the workshop process and all parties had an opportunity to address it in written comments.

The joint comments of the Cogeneration Association of California and the Energy Producers and Users Coalition speak to QF pricing and fundamental changes to the interim avoided cost methodology. As discussed in this decision, these issues are beyond the scope of the 2006 Update phase. We do not make any modifications to the draft decision in response to them.

We do, however, make substantive modifications to the draft decision's discussion of the appropriate treatment of costs and transfer payments in the TRC test, and make minor clarifications and corrections in response to comments.