XI. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with § 311(d) and Rule 14.2 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure on January 30, 2007. Comments were filed on February 20, 2007 by SCE and by Marcy Watton, et al. (collectively, Leona Valley Residents)36 and reply comments were filed on February 27, 2007 by SCE.
In addition, the City of Santa Clarita sent a letter to Chief Administrative Law Judge Angela K. Minkin, dated February 14, 2007. On February 20, 2007, ChiefALJ Minkin issued a ruling placing the letter in the formal record of the proceeding and treating it as comments on the proposed decision.
The following entities attempted to file comments on the proposed decision, however the comments were not accepted for filing in the formal record of the proceeding on a variety of procedural grounds, including the fact that none of them were parties to the proceeding or filed motions to intervene in the proceeding: California Independent System Operator (ISO) (not a party to the proceeding); John Allday, et al. (not a party to the proceeding; late filed); and Ron and Sherry Howell (not a party to the proceeding, various other procedural deficiencies). Nevertheless, all of these comments were placed in the public comment/correspondence file for the proceeding and were considered in the preparation of this decision.
We note that Rules 14.3(c) and (d) regarding comments and reply comments on a proposed or alternate decision provide:
(c) Comments shall focus on factual, legal or technical errors in the proposed or alternate decision and in citing such errors shall make specific references to the record. Comments which merely reargue positions taken in briefs will be accorded no weight. Comments proposing specific changes to the proposed or alternate decision shall include supporting findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(d) Replies to comments may be filed within five days after the last day for filing comments and shall be limited to identifying misrepresentations of law, fact or condition of the record contained in the comments of other parties. Replies shall not exceed five pages in length.
A. SCE's Comments
SCE's comments state general agreement with most of the proposed decision. However, SCE requests that certain aspects of the proposed decision need to be modified in order to assure that the State's aggressive schedule for the rapid development of renewable resources can be met. Specifically, SCE has requested that a number of the proposed mitigation measures be deleted or revised. SCE has also requested changes to the schedule of approval processes that will be employed once construction of the project is underway. SCE has also requested that it not be required to use higher tower structures between certain mileposts as a mitigation measure to reduce EMF. Finally, SCE has requested the addition of a Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law addressing the need to keep project construction on schedule.
36 The Leona Valley Residents moved to intervene in this proceeding on October 5, 2006. That motion to intervene is hereby granted.
