V. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were received from CARE,³ DWR, SDG&E, Sempra and SCE.

PG&E asked the Commission to clarify when, and under what conditions, PG&E would assume the CCSF contract, and we modified the decision to reflect those changes. DWR requested changes to the sections on affects the reallocations might have on the IOUs' Operating Agreements and on the RMR aspects of the Williams D contracts and we made the changes. CARE raised concerns about the cost of the CCSF contract to PG&E ratepayers. Sempra and SCE generally supported the draft decision.

SDG&E, however, raised serious objections to the reallocation of the Williams D contract to SCE particularly on the ground that to execute the reallocation on such short notice would severely disrupt the utility's formal resource planning process and most likely create immediate resource deficiencies. In balancing our goal of enhancing grid reliability, but also promoting prudent resource planning, we modify the draft decision to have the reallocation effective January 1, 2007, rather than immediately. By deferring the allocation by two years, SDG&E will have ample opportunity to properly account for the loss of energy and capacity in its long-term resource plan.

³ CARE's comments were accompanied by a Motion to File Comments One Day Out of Time. Motion granted.