Showing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b) or eligible local government entity status (§§ 1802(d), 1802.4): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.14-10-010 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): D.17-04-035 02/03/15 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status? Yes Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b)) 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.14-10-010 10. Date of ALJ ruling: 11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): D.17-04-035 02/03/15 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Yes Timely request for compensation (§ 1804©): 13. Identify Final Decision: D.17-04-039 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: May 8, 2017 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: July 7, 2017 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion Decision D.17-07-039 settled Track 2 issues in the energy storage proceeding (please note that Attachment 2 includes a list of issue areas, and of GPI Pleadings relevant to this Claim.) Task 1. V1G Eligibility Decision D.17-04-039 declines to allow V1G smart charging technology to be eligible for the D.14-10-045 storage targets, as the GPI proposed. Decision Providing yet another forum to consider V1G issues can create confusion, further undermining the goal of increasing the deployment of two-way storage Verified
issue, the GPI made a substantial contribution by helping to enrich the record upon which the Commission’s decision was based, and we note that the Decision provides an opening to adopt our approach in the future. flexible ramping resources, under a 50 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard, citing various modeling work and studies undertaken by CAISO, E3, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Low-Carbon Grid Study. [D.17-04-039, pg. 15.] We do not lose sight of the market transformation objectives of the energy storage targets, however, and may reconsider whether to increase the targets in a future rulemaking after the results from the 2016 Storage Evaluation process become available. To be clear, while we do not modify the targets, we view them as the minimum cost-effective energy storage resources that the utilities must procure, not the maximum. [D.17-04-039, pg. 18.] Pleadings We also urge the Commission to consider 2025 and 2030 procurement targets in light of the new RPS under SB 350. [GPI Comments, 2/5/16, pg. 2.] We support a workshop to consider various options for increasing the ESP targets. We preliminarily support Sierra Club’s recommendation for an additional 3,000 megawatts of storage. [GPI Reply Comments, 2/22/16, pg. 2.] If the Commission approves a higher ESP target, we suggest a four-part revised ESP structure that acknowledges natural divisions between scale and technology types: 1) community storage of all types (1 MW and smaller); 2) medium-scale storage of all types (1-20 MW); 3) large storage of all types MW); 4) bulk storage (50 MW and up for hydro and other large-scale storage technologies). [GPI Reply Comments, 2/22/16, pg. 2.]