X. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with § 311 of the Pub. Util. Code and Rule 14.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on November 6, 2006, and reply comments were filed on November 13, 2006, by PG&E, TURN, CUE and CURE (jointly), DRA, AReM, CLECA and CMTA (jointly), and IEP. In response to these comments, we have made changes to the decision as appropriate.

In addition to addressing the merits of the proposed decision, PG&E, CUE, CARE and DRA urge the Commission to reverse the ALJ's October 17, 2006, ruling denying their motion to accept a late-filed motion for approval of their partial settlement. The ALJ denied the motion for failure to show good cause, noting that consideration of the proposed settlement would delay resolution of the proceeding to January 2007, causing contractual milestones for the projects to lapse and the risk that urgently needed generation resources are not on line by the 2009 and 2010 summer peak period, that it is not joined by all of the parties who litigated the issues which the settlement would resolve, and that it would not resolve all of the disputed issues in the proceeding. These comments are procedurally improper and accorded no weight pursuant to Rule 14.3(c). They also give further cause for denying the motion to consider the late-filed settlement: As the comments point out, the partial settlement would provide the opportunity for PG&E to recover capital costs for Colusa in excess of its project bid price which, as discussed previously and according to DRA, would violate D.04-12-048.