Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge Hymes 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 September 19, 2016 by CEEIC, CESA, Comverge, CLECA, Bloom Energy, Joint Demand Response Parties, OhmConnect, Opower, ORA, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, Sierra Club/EDF, Solar City, and TURN. Reply comments were filed on September 26, 2016 by Bloom, CAISO, CLECA, Joint Demand Response Parties, ORA, OhmConnect, OPower, PG&E, SDG&E, Sierra Club/EDF, SoCalGas, SCE and TURN. Clarifications and corrections were made throughout this decision in response to the comments. We address certain comments here. SCE requested a 30-day delay in filing 2018-2022 demand response budget and activities applications. Noting that it received 4.5 months to develop 2017 bridge funding applications, SCE contends three months is insufficient time to develop a more difficult five-year application. We provide a 15-day extension and require the Utilities to file applications no later than January 16, 2017. Parties asked for clarification regarding whether the Utilities will be providing the new models of demand response or whether third party providers will be providing them through the demand response auction mechanism. This decision should be made following the issuance of the second part of the 2015 demand response potential study. Hence, the decision has been
Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge Hymes 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 September 19, 2016 by CEEIC, CESA, Comverge, CLECA, Bloom Energy, Joint Demand Response Parties, OhmConnect, Opower, ORA, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, Sierra Club/EDF, Solar City, and TURN. Reply comments were filed on September 26, 2016 by Bloom, CAISO, CLECA, Joint Demand Response Parties, ORA, OhmConnect, OPower, PG&E, SDG&E, Sierra Club/EDF, SoCalGas, SCE and TURN. Clarifications and corrections were made throughout this decision in response to the comments. We address certain comments here. SCE requested a 30-day delay in filing 2018-2022 demand response budget and activities applications. Noting that it received 4.5 months to develop 2017 bridge funding applications, SCE contends three months is insufficient time to develop a more difficult five-year application. We provide a 15-day extension and require the Utilities to file applications no later than January 16, 2017. Parties asked for clarification regarding whether the Utilities will be providing the new models of demand response or whether third party providers will be providing them through the demand response auction mechanism. This decision should be made following the issuance of the second part of the 2015 demand response potential study. Hence, the decision has been
167725665.docx