here - The Vote Solar Initiative

of Article 16 (commencing with Section 399.11).
This mandate “applies notwithstanding any prior decision of the commission to the contrary.” 17/
The Decision is clear that the Commission adopted the RAM to “contribute to RPS goals
in the near term.” 18/
As a program implemented pursuant to and in furtherance of the RPS
program, the RAM program must be applied to ESPs and CCAs under the express statutory
requirements described above. The Decision violates these requirements by applying the RAM
program to only the IOUs, and must be modified to correct this legal error.
The Decision states that the Commission is considering expansion of RPS requirements
to ESPs pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 365.1. 19/ The Commission issued decision 11-
01-026 on January 14, 2011 to implement Section 365.1, however, and that decision does not
address the applicability of RAM program requirements to ESPs. The Decision must therefore
be modified without further delay to comply with the clear statutory directives contained in
Section 365.1 and the other statutes described above. The Decision declines to apply the RAM
to CCAs because CCAs are exempt from Section 365.1’s provisions. 20/ This ignores the
statutory mandates set forth in Section 399.12 and Section 380, which were unchanged by the
passage of Section 365.1. The Decision’s additional purported reason for failure to apply the
RAM to CCAs – that they have not had the opportunity to comment because no CCA was in
operation at the time the record was open for comment 21/ – is equally unavailing. No comment
period is needed for the Commission to follow California law requiring CCAs to be subject to
the same requirements under the RPS program as the IOUs.
17/ Pub. Util. Code § 365.1(c)(1).
18/ Decision at 2.
19/ Decision at 23-24.
20/ Id. at 24.
21/ Ibid.
7