5. Intervenor Testimony

AER contends the contracts are needed for this summer and in the next five years, the contracts are consistent with future wholesale market design, and the contracts are reasonable and should be approved. EnerNOC supports SCE's application, representing that it is more cost-effective than as shown by SCE's analysis.

DRA recommends the Commission not approve the Contracts. DRA contends the Contracts are not reasonable and are not needed in the short term because SCE has adequate reserve margins and contracted DR resources for the summer of 2008. Alternatively, DRA argues the Commission should only approve two Contracts with ASC that SCE has shown to be cost-effective based on the Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation Framework under consideration in R.07-01-041.

TURN contends SCE has no need for the additional resources that would be procured through the Contracts for at least 2008 and 2009, either for system reliability purposes or to meet the Resource Adequacy requirements of its bundled service customers. Thus, TURN argues that approval of these contracts would represent the purchase of an expensive and unnecessary insurance policy that costs much more than customers would be willing to pay for such insurance if given the choice.