IV. Motions

Any motions not already ruled on by the ALJ or discussed below are deemed denied.

SCE's Motion to Strike Comments by Sempra Global

On April 22, 2005, SCE filed a motion to strike a portion of Sempra's reply comments that described the working relationship of SCE and Sempra concerning the Sempra Generation contract. SCE and Sempra reached a mutually satisfactory resolution and the motion is now moot.

PG&E's Motion Re: DWR Kings River Contract

On April 25, 2005, PG&E filed a motion seeking Commission confirmation of the agreement reached between PG&E and DWR concerning the Kings River contract. This agreement came about as follows: On February 14, 2005, DWR requested that the Commission allocate its Kings River contract to a utility for operational purposes. On March 14, 2005, PG&E submitted a response to the DWR request indicating that PG&E would accept operational allocation of the Kings River contract pending final resolution of the issue by the Commission. DWR responded to PG&E setting forth the specifics of what DWR needed PG&E to undertake concerning the contract. By letter dated April 22, 2005, PG&E confirmed to DWR that it would assume the requested undertakings concerning the Kings River contract.

This decision grants PG&E's motion and confirms the agreement reached between PG&E and DWR concerning allocation of the Kings River contract for operational purposes.

CARE's Motion on Otay Mesa Generating Plant Contract

On March 28, 2005, CALifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) filed a motion for leave to file out-of-time comments on the allocation of power purchase agreements (PPA) with the DWR. CARE's concern was that the 10-year PPA agreement the Commission approved between SDG&E and Calpine Corporation (Calpine) for the OMGP in D.04-06-011 was burdensome to SDG&E's ratepayers. Since CARE filed its motion, the Commission granted rehearing of D.04-06-011 specifically in regard to the approval of OMGP. While rehearing of OMPG is underway, there is no longer an approved PPA, so CARE's motion is moot. CARE should follow the rehearing phase for OMGP and voice its concerns in that forum.

CARE's Motion for Clarification of the CCSF Contract

On June 13, 2005, CARE filed a motion seeking clarification on the allocation of the CCSF DWR contract. Since the terms and conditions are not yet finalized, we are unable to provide further clarification at this time, and on that basis deny CARE's motion without prejudice.