7. Comments on Proposed Decision

On January 11, 2008, the proposed decision of ALJ Mattson in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules). Comments were filed on January 31, 2008 by SCE, PG&E, SDG&E, GPI, MU and Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP). Reply comments were filed on February 5, 2008, by SCE, PG&E, SDG&E, GPI, IEP and California Wind Energy Association. As required by our rules, comments must focus on factual, legal or technical errors and, in citing such errors, must make specific references to the record. Comments which merely reargue positions taken in the proceeding are given no weight. (Rule 14.3.)

We carefully considered comments which focus on factual, legal or technical errors, with citation to the record, and make appropriate changes to the proposed decision. In particular, we clarify that pooling does not change existing earmarking rules, explain that the revised flexible compliance rules apply to all LSEs, delete the discussion of TOD factors, and make other modifications as appropriate.