3. Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision

Comments on the Proposed and Alternate Decisions were timely filed on August 13, 2007 by DRA, Niagara Bottling, LLC, PG&E, SCE, and SoCalGas. Reply comments were timely filed by SoCalGas, SCE, PG&E, Niagara Bottling LLC, and Merced Irrigation District on August 20, 2007. Reply comments were also timely filed by DRA on August 17, 2007.

In its comments and reply comments PG&E urges the Commission to continue to exclude nonbypassables from the price floor and argues that in doing so the Commission will actually increase the total amount of NBC charge revenues collected by increasing the total number of EDR contracts. PG&E also asserts, however, that NBC revenues are presently being fully collected. PG&E does not persuasively demonstrate how NBCs can be excluded from the price floor and fully funded at the same time. Today's decision simply mandates what PG&E and SCE say they are already doing -- that is fully funding all NBCs for each EDR contract each month.

SCE, Niagara and other customers benefitting from EDR contracts argue that it would be unfair to retroactively eliminate discounts that were offered as a result of D.05-09-018. We agree that existing EDR customers relied on EDR contracts in making long-term business decisions to stay in California and should continue to benefit from existing negotiated rates. However customers that so relied should be indifferent to whether that discount is taken out of the distribution and transmission components or the nonbypassable charges.