6. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of ALJ Simon in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on August 4, 2008 by AReM; Calpine; CEERT; CRS; DRA; GPI; IEP; Mountain Utilities; PG&E; Powerex; SCE; SDG&E; SMUD; Solar Alliance; TURN; and UCS. Reply comments were filed on August 11 by AReM; DRA; GPI; PG&E; SCE; SMUD; Large-scale Solar Alliance (LSA); and Wal-Mart.74 We have carefully considered all comments and reply comments and made changes to the PD where appropriate.
Most comments focus on the Environmental and Renewable Attributes aspect of the REC definition set forth in the PD. The principal topics noted in the comments are both GHG accounting issues: the treatment of the null power resulting from the transfer of a REC and the treatment of the avoided emissions value of a REC associated with RPS-eligible generation from a region not subject to a GHG cap, for which the associated energy is not delivered to California. The PD has been revised to expand and clarify the discussion of the relationship of the definition of RECs for RPS compliance to the developing compliance regime under AB 32 with respect to these and other topics, mindful that final authority for AB 32 implementation rests with ARB.
Some commenters note that ambiguities in the PD's discussion of "delivery" of electricity for RPS purposes impacts the REC definition.75 The discussion of delivery has been clarified.76 CEERT and Powerex suggest that greater precision is needed in the REC definition about delivery requirements. The wording of the definition has been revised.
Commenters ask us both to slow down and to speed up our consideration of issues related to TRECs. SDG&E requests that the PD be withdrawn, or at least delayed until after ARB finalizes its Draft Scoping Plan. AReM and CEERT urge that we order staff to work on TRECs so that a PD on TRECs can be issued essentially immediately. We decline both suggestions. The Second Amended Scoping Memo clearly sets out the course for this proceeding, which we adopt in our Next Steps section of this decision.
Additional revisions have been made to improve clarity and consistency, and to correct minor errors.
74 LSA and Wal-Mart each filed a Motion for Party Status with their reply comments. Those motions were granted on August 14, 2008.
75 See, e.g., comments of AReM, CEERT, Powerex; Solar Alliance; reply comments of GPI, PG&E, and Wal-Mart.
76 Mountain Utilities also raises a question about whether it will be able to meet the grid-connection requirements that it asserts WREGIS imposes for generation to give rise to a WREGIS Certificate. Because this appears to be an issue entirely within the purview of WREGIS, we do not address it here. The RPS eligibility of any utility-owned renewable generation Mountain Utilities chooses to deploy will be determined by the CEC.
