7. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the Commissioner in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code §311 and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on or before the due date by PG&E and SCE, Sempra, CHCC and CAPCC, AT&T, Verizon, CWA, and Greenlining. Reply comments were filed on May 2 by AT&T, Verizon, SCE/PG&E, Greenlining, and CHCC/CAPCC. CWA expressed concern about how goal provisions in
§§8.8 - 8.10 would apply to that industry and seek additional time to adapt their procurement reporting to SIC codes. After due consideration and consultation with the assigned Commissioner, some non- substantive and substantive changes have been made to the decision, including:

· Requiring an annual en banc hearing by the Commission to provide an opportunity for discussion of GO 156 and related legislative policy;

· Requiring a random audit every two years of one GO 156 annual report from one of the industry groups, beginning in 2012 with energy companies;

· Requiring reporting, to the extent available, of the approximate amount of funds directly expended on development and distribution of technical assistance;

· Ordering the Commission's USDP Staff to convene a workshop with the utilities after the decision becomes final in order to reach a common understanding of what is to be separately reported as a result of the amendments to GO 156. The workshop should address and resolve any confusion the water companies have about adapting their procurement reporting to GO 156 requirements.

· Ask the utilities to annually set their own voluntary numerical goals to be included in the next annual GO 156 report pursuant to §9.1.4.