11. Comments on Draft Decision

On November 16, 2004, the draft decision of Commissioner Carl Wood was filed and served on parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311( g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed and served on or before December 6, 2004 by PG&E, SCE, AES, Calpine, DENA, Elk Hills, IEP, Mirant, and WCP. No reply comments were filed. No motion for final oral argument was made.

We make several changes based on comments. For example, as recommended by SCE, we change the first phrase in Conclusion of Law 9 from `should' to `may.' ("Failure to meet a Guideline may raise CPSD's concern about a GAO's compliance...") In response to a comment of DENA, we change a reference from "CPSD's implementation and enforcement" of Guidelines (which may imply a more formal role for Guidelines than intended) to "CPSD's use of Guidelines." Also in response to a comment by DENA, we clarify that implementation of Operation Standard 24 will take into account all relevant and material factors brought to our attention (e.g., whether or not the GAO has a contract for its output). We also provide more precision on filing requirements to maintain a consistent and parallel approach within the program (e.g., Operation Plan Summary to be filed under oath, affirmation or verification; scheduled fine for failure to file the Operation Plan Summary or Updated Operation Plan Summary). We add a scheduled fine for failure to maintain an Operation Plan. (This decision at §§ 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.) We make parallel changes to the GO regarding a Maintenance Plan.

Finally, concerns have been raised regarding potential ambiguities in the enforcement of Standards we adopt today. We encourage CPSD staff to continue to meet with GAOs to eliminate any perceived ambiguities.