5. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision 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 were filed on January 31, 2012 by eight parties (SCE, DRA, IEP, SEIA, Silverado Power, Clean Coalition, Basic Crafts Alliance, and Southern California District Council of Laborers). Reply comments were filed on February 6, 2012 by two parties (SCE, and the Coalition of California Utility Employees). 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 fail to do so, or which merely reargue positions taken in the proceeding, are given no weight (Rule 14.3.) We similarly give no weight to new facts first asserted in comments. Specific contract clauses and labor issues are not within the scope of the petition for modification, and we decline to address them here.27
We make limited changes based on comments. For example, we clarify that the contract we expect parties to use for the additional 225 MW solicited via RAM is the RAM contract in effect at the time of contracting (not the contract used for the first RAM solicitation "frozen" over time even if changes to the RAM contract are later made by the Commission). We clarify that the 20% limitation on ground-mounted facilities in the remaining UOG and IPP portions of SPVP is up to a total of 50 MW (25 MW each in the UOG and IPP portions). We adjust the capacity transferred to RAM from the 250 MW cited in the proposed decision to 225 MW here to reflect the conversion from DC to AC output. We also more clearly state the MW for the remaining three RAM auctions (see Attachment 2).
27 Specific SPVP contract issues are addressed in draft Resolution E-4453.
