9. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of Commissioner Bilas was mailed for comment on March 23, 2001. Comments were filed by PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ORA, TURN, CalSEIA, CAC/EPUC, jointly by Capstone and Caterpillar (Capstone/Caterpillar)), Aglet, GI/LIG,23 State Consumers, CA ISO, and RealEnergy, Inc. (RealEnergy).24 Reply comments were filed by PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, ORA, CalSEIA, CAC/EPUC, Aglet, and State Consumers. We have made revisions throughout the decision to reflect comments by these parties. We note that RealEnergy and Capstone/Caterpillar recommend we delay action on this decision pending action on certain legislation. This request is opposed by SCE,
PG&E, and Aglet.
On May 22, 2001, the Governor signed SB X1 28 (Stats. 2001, Chap. 12). This bill, among other purposes, directs this Commission to require utilities to charge customers that install new distributed generation under tariffs applicable to customers that do not use distributed generation. In other words, SB X1 28 exempts certain customers from payment of standby charges. A ruling directing the utilities to take steps to implement these provisions has been issued in this docket. However, given that numerous customers employing onsite generation may not be covered by the provisions of SB X1 28, standby rates will still be necessary, and the framework this decision sets forth remains appropriate for those customers, and begins the process of compliance with § 353.13 as adopted by SB X1 28. Of course, in preparing their applications in compliance with this order, the utilities should ensure that all provisions of SB X1 28, like the firewall provision, are addressed.
On April 21, 2001, the assigned ALJ received an email from Eileen Smith, representing Solar Development Cooperative (SDC).25 The email is styled as a motion but was not filed with the Docket Office as required by our Rules of Practice and Procedure. The email seeks leave to file comments late, stating that SDC did not receive service of the proposed decision. SDC was served with a copy of the proposed decision. The mailing address on file for SDC is the same as the address listed in SDC's email. We will not grant SDC's request to late-file comments.
23 On April 10, 2001, GI/LIF served an errata to its comments. Docket Office filed the errata at the direction of the Assigned ALJ. 24 RealEnergy is not listed as a party to this proceeding on the official service list but instead it holds information only status. We have however, considered the comments of RealEnergy in revising the proposed decision. 25 An additional email was received on May 7, 2001. Copies of both emails have been placed in the correspondence file for R.99-10-025.
