11. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Gottstein was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on _____________ and reply comments were filed on _______________.

Findings of Fact

1. The modeling approach used in this proceeding to establish the reliability need for new transmission capability to the Southwest has never been used before by either the utilities or the ISO. The matrix model used in this proceeding was benchmarked against the results of a Southern California power flow study, using one set of similar input assumptions.

2. The results of the matrix model are the same as those of the Southern California power flow study only if transmission capability is derated in the matrix model.

3. The one-to-one derating assumption used by the ISO in benchmarking the model has not been confirmed with power flow studies.

4. The derating formula was not applied consistently in the scenario analyses presented on the record. In addition, the formula does not deduct capacity retirements when calculating the gap between in-state generation resources and loads or the resulting derate of transfer capability.

5. The record indicates that derating would not be needed on a one-to-one basis, or perhaps not even at all, if sufficient additional reactive voltage support is installed. However, the derate formula used by the ISO does not factor in any relationship between reactive voltage support and required reduction in transfer capability.

6. If the one-to-one derate ratio is inaccurate, or should not be applied at all, the matrix model results will not match the Southern California study for the benchmarked case and will underestimate the need for new transmission by approximately 2-3 years.

7. Based on the record, the transfer capability of existing transmission interties is higher than the input assumptions used in the matrix model. Path 45 transfer capacity will be increased from 408 MW to 800 MW, effective in 2002. The transfer capability of Southern California import transmission has been increased from 13,200 MW to 14,300 MW due to the installation of new reactive voltage support.

8. The outage and retirements assumptions used for Scenarios 2, 4, and 5 are more consistent with the evidentiary record than those assumed under the Joint Parties' Planning Scenario.

9. Projections of load between base load and base load minus 10% assumptions are consistent with the record concerning future demand and conservation efforts. Load projections at 10%-20% above base load projections appear highly unlikely.

10. Based on the number of new generation projects under construction and the number that have already received financing for Southern California, the "very low" new internal generation case (720 MW) appears highly unlikely.

11. Because utilities have never before had a large number of generators wanting to build in California, it is difficult at this time to assess the likelihood of the "low" to "maximum" (5,500 MW to 20,500 MW) of new in-state generation coming on line.

12. Assessing the likelihood of projects coming on line for export from Mexico is difficult at this time because: 1) there have been no exports from Mexico to Southern California in the past; 2) construction and financing on new projects requesting interconnection studies have not been completed; 3) contracts and commitments for power projects have not been finalized in all cases.

13. The assumptions for external resources available from Arizona and Nevada are inflated because they are based on a resource potential estimate that is approximately 10,000 MW larger than the amounts generally used in CEC load and resource assessments.

14. Reruning the matrix model with updated assumptions on transfer capability and with the derating formula applied consistently (and incorporating retirements into the formula), yields the following results:

· No need for new transmission to the Southwest until 2009 or beyond in all cases except those run under 1) very low new internal generation (720 MW) and 2) low or medium internal generation with a 10%-20% increase in base load demand.

· The only two cases in which need is indicated before 2011 in scenarios with other than the "very low" internal generation assumptions is the "low" generation scenario with 1) a 10% increase in base load assuming no post-2004 retirements and 2) base load demand assuming post-2004 retirements.

· Accounting for the potential 2-3 year bias in the matrix model based on the benchmark run, the need for new transmission does not surface before 2008, under all but relatively unlikely combinations of load and internal generation assumptions.

15. The Joint Parties did not present an economic analysis of additional Southwest transfer capability on the record, but intend to pursue an RFP process initiated by the ISO to develop a joint methodology for such an analysis.

16. The Joint Parties presented preliminary cost estimates for transmission upgrades to the Southwest. The total estimates ranged between three-quarters billion to three and three-quarters billion dollars, depending upon the route and ultimate cost of transmission line per line.

17. Transmission owners, ISO staff, and interested stakeholders participate in the ISO's annual transmission planning process to identify projects needed for system reliability purposes. At the completion of this process, transmission projects under $20 million are approved by ISO management, i.e., the Regional Transmission Manager in the Grid Planning Department in consultation with ISO officers, as needed. Projects over $20 million are approved by the ISO Board. The ISO has never assessed the economic need for transmission projects since its inception in 1997. Since the ISO has been established, all of the projects approved (over 200) have involved upgrades to address reliability requirements. Less than 10 of those projects have required ISO Board approval.

18. The ISO does not conduct evidentiary proceedings to scrutinize the assumptions or methods utilized in its transmission planning process.

19. Based on the record in this proceeding, we find that new transmission to the Southwest (including Mexico) is not likely to be needed for reliability purposes before 2008. Our conclusions take account of recent updates to transmission transfer capability identified on the record, as well as potential bias in the model utilized by the Joint Parties.

20. The Commission should monitor the reliability efforts conducted through the ISO's Grid Coordinated Planning Process in order to update and confirm these results with the detailed power flow studies conducted during that process. As discussed in this decision, Energy Division should report to the Assigned Commissioner and ALJ if the power flow studies indicate a need for new Southwest transfer capability earlier than 2008.

21. The issues raised by Coral Power in this proceeding regarding the need to reduce congestion west of Miguel should be addressed in the separate set of evidentiary hearings scheduled this fall.

22. To the extent that significant ratepayer funding is involved to further upgrade Path 45, this issue may be included in the evidentiary hearings on the economic need for new transmission to the Southwest.

23. No findings can be made from this record regarding the adequacy of the in-state transmission grid in the Southern California region.

Conclusions of Law

1. Decisions concerning the economic need of major transmission projects, as well as the allocation of costs among ratepayers and other project beneficiaries, should not be left to the discretion of ISO management personnel or Board. Instead, this assessment should be made at the Commission, which has both a statutory mandate and authority to protect ratepayers' interests and an open evidentiary process to scrutinize the methodologies and assumptions used to reach such determinations.

2. In order to proceed with further evaluation of transmission upgrades to the Southwest as soon as possible, this order should be effective today.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Energy Division shall monitor the reliability modeling efforts conducted through the California Independent System Operator's (ISO) Grid Coordinated Planning Process or other planning processes in order to update and confirm the results of this proceeding on an ongoing basis. Specifically, Energy Division shall report by letter to the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) if the power flow studies indicate a need for new transmission capacity to Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico for reliability purposes earlier than 2008. This report shall be filed and served in this proceeding.

2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company shall jointly file the results of the ISO/stakeholder Request for Proposal process in this proceeding within 15 days from the date the consultant's final report is completed. Copies of the full report shall be served on Energy Division and the assigned ALJ. A notice of the availability of this report shall also be served in this proceeding. As soon as practicable thereafter, the assigned ALJ will hold a further prehearing conference to schedule evidentiary hearings on the economic need for new transmission to the Southwest.

3. SDG&E shall submit information on the status of discussions or actions to further upgrade Path 45 in its monthly transmission status reports.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.

			Table 1
	SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH NO RETIREMENTS AND ISO OUTAGE FIGURES
Case #	Description of Load			Availability of External		Year That New Line Needed
	and Internal Generation			Generation Levels		(2001-2011 Planning Period) *
						With Derate		Without Derate
J1.1, J1.2	Maximum internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A
J1.3, J1.4	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J1.5, J1.6	Baseload plus 20%
J3.1, J3.2	Baseload less 10%
J3.3, J3.4	Baseload less 20%
J3.5, J3.6	Average Load
J2.1, J2.2	Medium internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A
J2.4, J2.5	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J2.6, J4.1	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J4.2, J4.4	Average load
J4.5, J4.6
J5.1, J5.2	Low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A
J5.4, J5.5	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J5.6, J6.1	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J6.2, J6.4	Average load
J6.5, J6.6
J7.4, J7.5	Very low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A
J7.6, J8.4	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J8.5, J8.6	Average load
J2.3 &J4.3	Medium internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2011		N/A
	Base load plus 20%
J5.3 & J6.3	Low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2009		N/A
	Base load plus 20%
J7.1 & J8.1	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2008		after 2011
	Base load
J7.2 & J8.2	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2005		2008
	Base load plus 10%
J7.3 & J8.3	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2001		2001
	Base load plus 20%
NOTES:
NA= "not applicable". Derating was only done for the baseload, baseload plus 10%
and baseload plus 20% load runs under the "very low internal generation" cases.
* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet
all of the load demand within California.

				Table 2
	SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH RETIREMENTS AND CEC OUTAGE FIGURES
Case #	Description of Load			Availability of External		Year That New Line Needed
	and Internal Generation			Generation Levels		(2001-2011 Planning Period) *				With Post-2004
						With Derate		Without Derate		Retirements**
J1.1, J1.2	Maximum internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A		After 2011
J1.3, J1.4	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J1.5, J1.6	Baseload plus 20%
J3.1, J3.2	Baseload less 10%
J3.3, J3.4	Baseload less 20%
J3.5, J3.6	Average Load
J2.1, J2.4	Medium internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A		After 2001
J2.5, J2.6	Baseload
J4.1, J4.4	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J4.5, J4.6	Average load
J5.1, J5.4	Low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A		After 2011
J5.5, J5.6	Baseload
J6.1, J6.4	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J6.5, J6.6	Average load
J7.5, J7.6	Very low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		N/A		After 2011
J8.5, J8.6	Baseload less 20%
	Average load
J2.2 & J4.2	Medium internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2010		N/A		2008
	Base load plus 10%
J2.3 & J4.3	Medium internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2006		N/A		2005
	Base load plus 20%
J5.2 & J6.2	Low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2008		N/A		2007
	Base load plus 10%
J5.3 & J6.3	Low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2004		N/A		2004
	Base load plus 20%
J7.1 & J8.1	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2004		2006		2004
	Base load case
J7.2	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum		2001		2002		2001
	Base load plus 10%
J7.3	Very low internal generation levels			Medium		2001		2001		2001
	Base load plus 20%
J7.4 & J8.4	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2011		N/A		2008
	Base load less 10%
J8.2	Very low internal generation levels			Medium		2001		2002		2001
	Base load plus 10%
J8.3	Very low internal generation levels			Medium		2001		2001		2001
	Base load plus 20% more
NOTES:
NA= "not applicable". Derating was only done for the baseload, baseload plus 10% and baseload plus 20% load runs under the "very low internal generation" cases.
* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet all of the load demand within California.
** Scenario with Post-2004 Retirements includes derating.

			Table 3
	SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH NO RETIREMENTS AND ISO OUTAGE FIGURES
			WITH UPDATED TRANSFER CAPABILITY AND DERATE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED
Case #	Description of Load			Availability of External		Year That New Line Needed
	and Internal Generation			Generation Levels		(2001-2011 Planning Period) *
						With Derate		Without Derate
J1.1, J1.2	Maximum internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011
J1.3, J1.4	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J1.5, J1.6	Baseload plus 20%
J3.1, J3.2	Baseload less 10%
J3.3, J3.4	Baseload less 20%
J3.5, J3.6	Average Load
J2.1, J2.2	Medium internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011
J2.4, J2.5	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J2.6, J4.1	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J4.2, J4.4	Average load
J4.5, J4.6
J5.1, J5.2	Low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011
J5.4, J5.5	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J5.6, J6.1	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J6.2, J6.4	Average load
J6.5, J6.6
J7.4, J7.5	Very low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011
J7.6, J8.4	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J8.5, J8.6	Average load
J2.3 &J4.3	Medium internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011
	Base load plus 20%
J5.3 & J6.3	Low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2011		2011
	Base load plus 20%
J7.1 & J8.1	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2010		after 2011
	Base load
J7.2 & J8.2	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2007		2009
	Base load plus 10%
J7.3 & J8.3	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2004		2004
	Base load plus 20%
NOTES:
NA= "not applicable".
* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet all of the load demand within California.
				Table 4
	SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH RETIREMENTS AND CEC OUTAGE FIGURES
			WITH UPDATED TRANSFER CAPABILITY AND DERATE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED
Case #	Description of Load			Availability of External		Year That New Line Needed
	and Internal Generation			Generation Levels		(2001-2011 Planning Period) *				With Post-2004
						With Derate		Without Derate		Retirements**
J1.1, J1.2	Maximum internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011		after 2011
J1.3, J1.4	Baseload, Baseload plus 10%
J1.5, J1.6	Baseload plus 20%
J3.1, J3.2	Baseload less 10%
J3.3, J3.4	Baseload less 20%
J3.5, J3.6	Average Load
J2.4, J2.5	Medium internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011		after 2011
J2.6, J4.4	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J4.5, J4.6	Average load
J5.4, J5.5	Low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011		after 2011
J5.6, J6.4	Baseload less 10%, less 20%
J6.5, J6.6	Average load
J2.1, J4.1	Medium internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011		2011
	Baseload
J5.1, J6.1	Low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011		2009
	Baseload
J7.6, J8.6	Very low internal generation			Maximum and medium		after 2011		after 2011		after 2011
	Average load
J2.2 & J4.2	Medium internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2011		after 2011		2008
	Base load plus 10%
J2.3 & J4.3	Medium internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2007		2007		2006
	Base load plus 20%
J5.2 & J6.2	Low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2009		2009		2007
	Base load plus 10%
J5.3 & J6.3	Low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2005		2005		2005
	Base load plus 20%
J7.1 & J8.1	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2004		2007		2004
	Base load case
J7.2	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum		2004		2004		2004
	Base load plus 10%
J7.3	Very low internal generation levels			Medium		2001		2001		2001
	Base load plus 20%
J7.4 & J8.4	Very low internal generation levels			Maximum and medium		2007		after 2011		2006
	Base load less 10%
J8.2	Very low internal generation levels			Medium		2004		2004		2001
	Base load plus 10%
J8.3	Very low internal generation levels			Medium		2001		2001		2001
	Base load plus 20% more
J7.5, J8.5	Very low internal generation			Maximum and medium		2011		after 2011		2007
	Baseload less 20%
NOTES:
NA= "not applicable".
* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet all of the load demand within California.

Figure 1 -Summary of Planning Scenario 1

Figure 2 - Summary of Scenario 2 -
CEC's Alternate Retirement and Outages Assumptions

************ APPEARANCES ************ Dennis W. De Cuir Atty At Law A LAW CORPORATION 2999 DOUGLAS BLVD., SUITE 325 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 (916) 788-1022 dennis@ddecuir.com For: Transmission Agency of Northern California David Marcus ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO PO BOX 1287 1541 JUANITA WAY BERKELEY CA 94701-1287 (510) 528-0728 dmarcus@slip.net For: Coalition of California Utility Employees Marc D. Joseph Attorney At Law ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 (650) 589-1660 mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com For: Coalition of California Utility Employees Michael Alcantar Attorney At Law ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP 1300 SW 5TH AVENUE., SUITE 1750 PORTLAND OR 97201 (503) 402-9900 mpa@a-klaw.com For: Cogeneration Association of California Evelyn Kahl LINDA SHERIF Attorney At Law ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP 120 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 421-4143 ek@a-klaw.com For: Energy Producers & Users Coalition Barbara R. Barkovich BARKOVICH AND YAP, INC. 31 EUCALYPTUS LANE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 (415) 457-5537 brbarkovich@earthlink.net For: California Large Energy Consumers Association & Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group	Scott Blaising Attorney At Law 8980 MOONEY ROAD ELK GROVE CA 95624 (916) 682-9702 blaising@braunlegal.com For: California Municipal Utilities Association A Brubaker BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1215 FERN RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 208 ST. LOUIS MO 63141 (314) 275-7007 mbrubaker@consultbai.com Fernando De Leon Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET, MS-14 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5512 (916) 654-4873 fdeleon@energy.state.ca.us For: California Energy Commission Theresa L. Mueller Attorney At Law CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 234 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-4682 (415) 554-4640 theresa_mueller@ci.sf.ca.us For: City and County of San Francisco Grant Kolling Senior Assistant City Attorney CITY OF PALO ALTO PO BOX 10250 PALO ALTO CA 94303 (650) 329-2171 grant_kolling@city.palo-alto.ca.us For: City of Palo Alto Frederick M. Ortlieb Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SAN DIEGO. CIVIL DIVISION 1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1100 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-4100 (619) 236-6318 fmo@sdcity.sannet.gov For: City of San Diego
Marcie Milner CORAL POWER, L.L.C. 4320 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, NO. 250 SAN DIEGO CA 92122 (858) 526-2106 mmilner@coral-energy.com Barbara Dunmore COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4080 LEMON STREET, 12TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE CA 92501-3651 (909) 955-1158 bdunmore@rceo.org Robert Buster Supervisor-District 1 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4080 LEMON STREET, 14TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE CA 92501-3651 district1@co.riverside.ca.us Lindsey How-Downing MYLIE BEESON Attorney At Law DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 (415) 276-6512 lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com For: Calpine Corporation Edward W. O'Neill Attorney At Law DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 (415) 276-6500 edwardoneill@dwt.com For: El Paso Merchant Energy Norman J. Furuta ROGER GREEN Attorney At Law DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 900 COMMODORE DRIVE SAN BRUNO CA 94066-5006 (650) 244-2100 furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil For: Federal Executive Agencies	Douglas K. Kerner Attorney At Law ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS 2015 H STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 447-2166 dkk@eslawfirm.com For: Duke Energy North America Diane Fellman Attorney At Law ENERGY LAW GROUP LLP 1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 2700 OAKLAND CA 94612-3572 (415) 703-6000 difellman@energy-law-group.com For: NEO Corporation Laura Roche JSOLE@CAISO.COM Attorney At Law FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP RUSS BUILDING, 30TH FLOOR 235 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 954-4400 lroche@fbm.com For: California Independent System Operator Barry R. Flynn President FLYNN AND ASSOCIATES 4200 DRIFTWOOD PLACE DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514-9267 For: CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO Brian T. Cragg JAMES D. SQUERI Attorney At Law GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, RITCHIE & DAY 505 SANSOME STREET, NINTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 392-7900 bcragg@gmssr.com For: Ridgetop, LLC Jan Green GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES 582 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1020 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 834-2300 jgreen@gralegal.com For: UC/CSU
Gayatri Schilberg JBS ENERGY 311 D STREET, SUITE A WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95605 (916) 372-0534 gayatri@jbsenergy.com For: The Utility Reform Network (TURN) Jeff Nahigian JBS ENERGY, INC. 311 D STREET, SUITE A WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95605 (916) 372-0534 jeff@jbsenergy.com For: JBS Energy, Inc. Susan E. Brown Attorney At Law LATINO ISSUES FORUM 785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003 (415) 284-7224 lifcentral@lif.org For: Latino Issues Forum C. Susie Berlin Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. MC CARTHY 2105 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 140 SAN JOSE CA 95125 (408) 558-0950 sberlin@mccarthylaw.com For: City of Anaheim William H. Booth Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. BOOTH 1500 NEWELL AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 (925) 296-2460 wbooth@booth-law.com For: California Large Energy Consumers Association John W. Leslie Attorney At Law LUCE FORWARD HAMILTON & SCRIPPS, LLP 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3391 (619) 236-1414 jleslie@luce.com For: Coral power	Barry F. Mc Carthy Attorney At Law 2105 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 140 SAN JOSE CA 95125 (408) 558-0950 bmcc@mccarthylaw.com For: Northern California Power Agency Daniel W. Meek RUTHANNE WILLIAMS Attorney At Law 10949 S.W. 4TH AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97219-7715 (503) 293-9021 dan@meek.net For: Residential Service Companies United Effort Rescue Diane E. Pritchard Attorney At Law MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2482 (415) 268-7188 dpritchard@mofo.com For: Pacific Gas and Electric Company and National Energy Group Sara Steck Myers Attorney At Law 122 28TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 (415) 387-1904 ssmyers@worldnet.att.net For: Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technology; and City of San Diego Kay Davoodi NAVY RATE INTERVENTION OFFICE 1314 HARWOOD STREET SE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5018 (202) 685-0130 DavoodiKR@efaches.navfac.navy.mil For: Navy Rate Intervention David T. Kraska Attorney At Law PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY MAILCODE B30A PO BOX 7442 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120-7442 (415) 973-7503 dtk5@pge.com
Don Schoenbeck RCS, INC 900 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1000 VANCOUVER WA 98660 (360) 737-3877 dws@keywaycorp.com For: Coalinga Cogen Co. James A. Ross RCS, INC 500 CHESTERFIELD CENTER, SUITE 320 CHESTERFIELD MO 63017 (636) 530-9544 jimross@r-c-s-inc.com For: Midway Sunset Cogen Co. William L. Nelson RUTHANNE WILLIAMS REECH, INC. KERN-INYO LIAISON SITE, POSTNET PMB #424 785 TUCKER ROAD, SUITE G TEHACHAPI CA 93561 (661) 823-8913 reechpubpol@mail.com For: REECH, Inc. Arlen Orchard Attorney At Law SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT PO BOX 15830, MS-B406 SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 (916) 732-5830 aorchar@smud.org For: Sacramento Municipal Utilities District E. Gregory Barnes Attorney At Law SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 (619) 699-5019 gbarnes@sempra.com For: SDG&E Joseph R. Kloberdanz Regulatory Affairs Case Management SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET; HQ14A SAN DIEGO CA 92101 (619) 696-4319 jkloberdanz@sempra.com	Steven C. Nelson Attorney At Law SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 (619) 699-5136 snelson@sempra.com For: San Diego Gas and Electric Company Richard Esteves SESCO, INC. 77 YACHT CLUB DRIVE LAKE FOREST NJ 07849 (973) 663-5125 sesco-lf@att.net For: SESCO, Inc. Marc B. Mihaly Attorney At Law SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 552-7272 armi@smwlaw.com For: Save Southwest Riverside County Osa Armi Attorney At Law SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 552-7272 armi@smwlaw.com For: Save Southwestern Riverside County David M. Norris Attorney At Law SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY 6100 NEIL ROAD RENO NV 89511 (775) 834-3939 dnorris@sppc.com For: SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY Michael D. Montoya JENNIFER.HASBROUCK@SCE.COM Attorney At Law SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RM 345 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAND CA 91770 (626) 302-6057 mike.montoya@sce.com For: Southern California Edison Company
Keith Mc Crea Attorney At Law SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN LLC 1275 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20004-2415 (202) 383-0705 kmccrea@sablaw.com For: California Manufacturers & Technology Association James E. Scarff Legal Division RM. 5121 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1440 jes@cpuc.ca.gov For: CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates Itzel Berrio R. GNAIZDA THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE 785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003 (415) 284-7202 iberrio@greenlining.org For: Greenlining and Latino Issues Forum Carl C. Lower THE POLARIS GROUP 717 LAW STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92109-2436 (619) 969-7150 clower@earthlink.net Marcel Hawiger Attorney At Law THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 350 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 929-8876	Maury Kruth Executive Director TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIF. PO BOX 15129 SACRAMENTO CA 95851-0129 (916) 852-1673 For: TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Joseph M. Karp Attorney At Law WHITE & CASE LLP 2 EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 650 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 544-1103 jkarp@whitecase.com For: California Cogeneration Council

(END OF ATTACHMENT 1)

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AB Assembly Bill

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

Board Board of Governors of the California Independent

System Operator

Btu British thermal units

CEC California Energy Commission

CFE Comision Federale de Electricidad

Coral Power Coral Power L.L.C.

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

D. Decision

Exh. Exhibit

ISO California Independent System Operator

Joint Parties California Independent System Operator, California
Energy Commission, Southern California Edison
Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company

kWh kilowatt hour

MW megawatt

Path 45 SDG&E/Mexico transmission intertie

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PHC Prehearing Conference

RFP Request for Proposals

RT Reporter's Transcript

SCE Southern California Edison Company

Scenario 1 Joint Parties' Planning Scenario

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Southwest Arizona, Nevada or Mexico

SSRC Save Southwest Riverside County

"the utilities" San Diego Gas & Electric Company and
Southern California Edison Company, collectively

WSCC Western System Coordinating Council

(END OF ATTACHMENT 2)