IX. Oral Argument and Comments on the Proposed Decision
The alternate proposed decision of Commissioner Lynch was mailed on December 4, 2003, for possible consideration at the Commission's December 18, 2003, agenda. Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 311(e) and Rule 77.6, 16 parties102 filed comments on the alternate proposed decision by December 11, 2003, and 11 parties103 filed reply comments by December 15, 2003. On December 18, 2003, the Commission adopted a portion of the subject matter of the original proposed decision in this proceeding, resulting in D.03-12-062. The remaining portion of this alternate proposed decision reflects changes based on comments and eliminates the already adopted matters in D.03-12-062. This revised alternate proposed decision is now being made available for additional public comment on January 12, 2004. Comments are due by noon on Tuesday January, 2004. No reply comments will be accepted.
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §1701.3(d), a final oral argument was held before a quorum of the Commission on December 2, 2003. Seventeen active parties presented argument. (48 RT 5927-6048.)
102 The following parties filed opening comments on the alternate proposed decision: PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ORA, TURN, ISO, City and County of San Francisco, Navaho Nation, AReM, WPTF, IEP, CAC/EPUC, CCC, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), Duke Energy North America, and Vulcan Power Company. In addition, many of these same parties, as well as the CEC, CPA, City of San Diego, NRDC, Joint Parties, Sempra Energy Resources, Coalition of California Utility Employees, and the Local Government Commission, filed comments on the proposed decision and the alternate proposed decision of Commissioner Peevey, all of which were considered in formulating this decision. In addition, the Department of Water Resources submitted letter comments. Finally, two entities filed motions to intervene for the purpose of submitting comments; the motion to intervene of the Ratepayers for Affordable Green Energy and the motion to intervene of Constellation NewEnergy, Inc were granted for the purpose of considering the comments each filed and their motions to intervene are granted in this decision. 103 The following parties filed replies on the alternate proposed decision: PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ORA, TURN, ISO, AReM, IEP, CAC/EPUC, CCC, and Ridgewood Olinda, LLC. The Navaho Nation also filed replies on the proposed decision and the alternate proposed decision of Commissioner Peevey, all of which were considered in formulating this decision.
