8. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of Commissioner Michael R. Peevey in this matter was initially mailed to the parties on January 15, 2008, 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 by FCE, PG&E, SCE, and UTC. Reply comments were filed by CCSE, SCE, and UTC. The proposed decision was subsequently withdrawn from the Commission's agenda following the filing of FCE's amended petition.

The proposed decision was mailed for comment a second time, following the filing of FCE's amended petition on February 8, 2008. Comments were filed by CCSE, Debenham, FCE, PG&E, SCE, jointly by San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company (SDG&E/SoCalGas), and UTC. Reply comments were filed by CCSE, Debenham, FCE, SCE, and UTC. The comments generally support the proposed decision, and minor modifications as suggested by the comments have been incorporated into the decision. Specifically, PG&E and CCSE request that the Commission clarify that eligible projects larger than 1 MW that are currently under review should not have to cancel their application and reapply to be considered for additional incentives. This clarification has been added to the order.

UTC requests that the augmented incentives be limited to the current $96 million in carryover funds. We decline this suggestion, preferring to allow any additional SGIP carryover funds that may become available over the course of 2008 and 2009 to be used as described in this order. SDG&E/SoCalGas ask for several clarifications on administration of carryover funding, such as how to handle add-ons to existing projects, roll-over of the budget if insufficient to fund a project greater than 1 MW, guidelines for budget transfers, a cap on the amount of carryover funds spent in one year, and wording to allow all eligible technologies to receive augmented incentives. We specifically decline to limit the amount of carryover funding spent in one year, and we decline the wording change to refer to "all eligible technologies." If legislation changes the SGIP eligibility, we can address extension of this program at that time. With regard to the other proposals, we will not address this level of administrative detail in the order, preferring to let our Energy Division work with the SGIP program administrators on appropriate resolution of issues such as these, as they arise, in keeping with the overall guidance set forth in this order.