6. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of ALJ Gottstein on 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. Comments were filed on October 3, 2005 by WEM, PG&E, SCE and jointly by SDG&E/SoCalGas. Replies to WEM's opening comments were filed on October 11, 2005 by PG&E, SCE and jointly by SDG&E/SoCalGas.

We have reviewed the comments on the draft decision. The utilities' opening comment briefly discuss their support for the draft decision. With respect to the comments submitted by WEM, we find no basis for modifying the determinations in that decision, as WEM urges. WEM's comments reargue the positions it has taken throughout this proceeding, as well as in other energy efficiency-related proceedings. We are still unpersuaded by its arguments.

We note that WEM has impermissibly exceeded the 15-page limitation of Rule 77.3. Further, WEM's comments constitute no more than reargue of its previous positions during the proceeding. Accordingly, WEM's comments do not comply with Commission Rule 77.3, which require that comments be limited to 15 pages and that there be no reargument of previous positions. As to the latter, Rule 77.3 provides that such comments "will be accorded no weight and are not to be filed." (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, the last five pages of WEM's comments argue that it has substantially contributed to the proceeding. Comments on draft decisions are not the appropriate place to present a request for intervenor compensation

WEM makes a number of unsupported and speculative allegations, of which the most egregious is WEM's allegation that PG&E wrote parts of the draft decision.⁴⁷ We reject these allegations as untrue, and thus, they have no merit. We note that such untrue, unsupported and speculative allegations could be considered disrespectful conduct. We remind WEM that in participating in Commission proceedings, a party is subject to requirements set forth in Rule 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and a party must act accordingly. Any violation or violations of Rule 1 may subject a party to sanctions, including but not limited, to prohibiting a party from participating in a Commission's proceeding, disallowing intervenor's compensation for unreasonable conduct, rejecting pleadings, holding a party in contempt under Public Utilities Code Section 2113, and any other sanctions permitted under the law.