compensation based on a showing of significant financial hardship. At this time, the most recent determination that we have made a sufficient showing is over one year old, and is thus outside of the window for the rebuttable presumption of hardship to apply. CforAT has recently submitted a request for a renewed finding of significant financial hardship in our request for intervenor compensation, filed on January 11, 2017 in A. 14-11-007 et al, the CARE/ESA Proceeding. PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion General CforAT’s substantive contributions to assist the Commission in its “snapshot” review of the state of competition in the telecommunications marketplace, and our specific efforts to describe the way that our constituency of consumers with disabilities (who are disproportionately and who have specialized needs for services) include: Testimony of Kathryn Woodford, admitted into the record as Exhibit 64 (Woodford Testimony); Testimony of Dmitri Belser, adopted at hearing by Melissa Kasnitz and admitted into the record as Exhibit This proceeding was opened in order to allow the Commission to obtain “a snapshot of the telecommunications marketplace in California, with an ‘as of’ date of December 31, 2015.” Final Decision at p. 9. More broadly, it was intended to follow up on the Commission’s stated intent in its URF Decisions, issued in 2006 and 2008, to “remain ‘vigilant’ and monitor the changes in traditional landline prices and services following deregulation.” Final Decision at p. 5. As recounted in the Final Decision’s procedural history, the carriers opposed every effort by the Commission and parties to obtain granular information about the state of competition in the market, forcing extensive procedural work in order for sufficient information to become available to allow any review whatsoever to take place. The carriers’ opposition to efforts to move this proceeding forward included “motions
65 (Belser/Kasnitz Testimony); CforAT’s Opening Brief and Reply Brief, filed on August 12, 2016 and August 26, 2016, respectively; CforAT’s Opening Comments on the PD, filed on November 7, 2016 (with Greenlining) and CforAT’s Reply Comments on the PD, filed on November 14, 2016. Below, CforAT discusses the specific issues where our input made a substantial contribution to the Final Decision, as well as our procedural contributions which assisted the Commission in moving forward in its important review of the telecommunications marketplace in California. challenging the Commission’s jurisdiction and calling for, among other things, suspension of the proceeding, extension of time to comply with discovery orders, changes to the timetable of the proceeding, and various housekeeping matters.” Final Decision at p. 7. The procedural history also describes further challenges to the proceeding, including additional motion practice as well as a challenge in Federal Court. Final Decision at pp. 5-9. In the face of ongoing carrier obstructionism, the Commission and Intervenors, including CforAT, persevered in order to obtain some level of information such that the Commission could conduct a meaningful review of the telecommunications marketplace. While much important information was never provided, the Final Decision expressly notes the important role played by intervenors, citing a past observation that “part of what gives [the Commission’s] processes legitimacy is participation from outside groups in our decision making process,” and continuing by noting that “comments received in this proceeding have validated that observation.” Final Decision at p. 169, citing D.06-06-066, Slip Op. at 58-59. Procedural Contributions CforAT, working in conjunction with other intervenors, opposed (or otherwise responded to) multiple procedural motions by carriers seeking to constrain the investigation taking place in this proceeding. Our efforts to support the Commission’s ability to move forward with this investigation include the following: As noted in the Final Decision, and described above, the carriers made repeated (and redundant) efforts to limit the scope of this proceeding, challenge the Commission’s jurisdiction, obstruct discovery, impede the schedule, strike testimony, and otherwise prevent the Commission’s review of the state of the telecommunications market in California from going forward. CforAT, in conjunction with other intervenors, worked diligently to assist the Commission in Verified