15. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with the Pub. Util. Code § 311(d) and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. SCE, ORA and Pacific Gas & Electric Company filed comments on October 18, 2004. Reply comments were filed on October 25, 2004. CDWR also commented in an October 18, 2004 memorandum addressed to the assigned commissioner and administrative law judge.

To the extent that the comments merely reargued the parties' positions taken in their briefs, those comments have not been given any weight. Comments that focused on factual, legal or technical errors have been considered, and appropriate changes have been made.

At the time SCE filed its briefs in this proceeding, it requested the Commission to hold oral argument on the issue of the proper scope of review of least-cost dispatch in the ERRA. The request was considered by the assigned commissioner's office and the administrative law judge and it was agreed that oral argument was not necessary at that time. In its comments on the PD, SCE has renewed its request for oral argument. In response, ORA states that SCE has fully voiced its disagreement with ORA, and the existence of a legal dispute between SCE and ORA is known and is not an adequate basis for convening oral argument now.

The positions of both SCE and ORA, as presented in direct testimony, rebuttal testimony, opening briefs, reply briefs, comments on the PD and reply comments on the PD, while contrary, are clear. The record is sufficient to address the issue of least-cost dispatch review, consistent with the requirements of AB 57 and prior Commission decisions. SCE's request for oral argument is therefore denied.