6. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision (PD) of the administrative law judge (ALJ) in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments to the PD were received from Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) and SCE. SCE's comments urged swift adoption of the PD so that SCE could get one step closer to getting the Blythe facility on-line to ensure that ratepayers have adequate resources to avoid "emergency resource planning" that is expensive and often less than optimal.

CARE, on the other hand, requests that the Commission not approve the Blythe facility because of unresolved issues on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) docket and on review before the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit), that could affect the Blythe facility and because CARE does not believe environmental issues were adequately addressed.

To begin, CARE worries about the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the plant. From CARE's perspective, it is not right to have the residents of Blythe suffer the consequence of the emissions from the plant, but the electricity generated by the Blythe facility will be used by SCE customers hundreds of miles away. CARE recommends locating the plant closer to the load center. In addition, the Blythe plant uses fresh water for cooling that would otherwise be available for agricultural uses, and that has resulted in fewer orchards and farms, and a loss of jobs for many agricultural workers. Finally, CARE objects to the location of the power plant, not just because of its distance from the SCE load center and its use of fresh water, but also because the plant was built on a site sacred to local people.

The FERC issues are also of concern to CARE because as CARE argues in its comments, the terms of the contract between SCE and Blythe could be changed by decisions by FERC and the Ninth Circuit, and SCE ratepayers could end up paying substantial monetary damages. CARE represents the poor and under-represented who are the least able to pay an increase in their electric bills if SCE is subject to monetary penalties for changing the terms of the contract.

On July 12, 2007, the Commission held a PPH in Blythe and listened to the comments presented by Blythe and Mesa Verde residents. Many of these speakers echoed the statements made by CARE about the siting of the facility on sacred grounds, the loss of agricultural jobs, and the concerns over all the GHG emission from the plant. The Commission has listened to and considered the comments from the PPH and the arguments raised by CARE.

Today, the only issue before the Commission is whether to approve the PPA between SCE and Blythe. Siting decisions were made years ago by the California Energy Commission (CEC). The Blythe facility was approved by the CEC, built by Blythe Energy, and is now fully functional. This Commission is only weighing whether the 10-year PPA for the output from the facility is needed by SCE to serve the needs of its system, and whether the choice of this resource to fill that need is reasonable. Based on our findings set forth in the decision, we find that the contract is needed and is a reasonable selection by SCE from its RFO.

In addition, we are aware of the outstanding FERC and Ninth Circuit issues and the possibility that a final decision on some of these issues could affect the Blythe/SCE contract. If there are monetary consequences as a result of changes to the terms of the contract, we will address at that time how to fairly allocate those costs. The FERC issues, as well as those on appeal in the Ninth Circuit are inchoate at this time, so we can not base this decision on unknown future possibilities.

On May 12, 2008, SCE filed a reply arguing that CARE did not present a valid reason for rejecting or postponing the PD, and urged the Commission to promptly adopt the PD.