8. Comments on Proposed Decision

On May 1, 2009, 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). On or about May 21, 2009, comments were filed by 14 parties.62 On or about May 26, 2009 reply comments were filed by four parties.63 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 consider 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 IOUs must use the final staff project viability methodology and calculator; clarify that deletion of TREC material from Plans is with regard to the use of TRECs to meet RPS Program targets; modify the discussion regarding transmission network upgrades; adjust the schedule for earmarking from the 2009 solicitation, the estimated filing of the 2010 Plans, and note that IOUs may file a pleading for an "early" solicitation in 2010 if needed to meet the 2010 RPS target of 20%; and make other modifications for clarification as necessary.

62 Comments were filed by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, DRA, GPI, LSA, IEP, UCS, CEERT, CalWEA, Reid, SES, and jointly by Alliance For Retail Energy Markets (AReM) and Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF).

63 Reply Comments were filed by PG&E, SCE, DRA and CalWEA.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page