Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812: Intervenor CPUC Verified Timely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference: 4/16/2015 Correct. 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed: 5/15/2015 Correct. 4. Was the NOI timely filed? Yes. Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.10-05-006 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility established in R.10-05-006 has expired (Section 1804(b)). See CPUC’s comment in item 10, below. In addition, Section 1804(b) only creates a rebuttable presumption with regards to significant financial hardship. 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 7/19/2011 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility established in R.10-05-006 has expired (Section 1804(b)). See CPUC’s comment in item 10, below. In addition, Section 1804(b) only creates a rebuttable presumption with regards to significant financial hardship. 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status? No; see, CPUC’s comments in Part I(C). Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.10-05-006 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility stemming from the July 19, 2011 ruling issued in R.10-05-006 has expired (§1804(b)) (see CPUC’s discussion in item 10, below). 10. Date of ALJ ruling: 7/19/2011 Under §1804(b), a rebuttable presumption of eligibility is only valid within a year after a finding of eligibility in another proceeding. This proceeding started more than 3 years after the ruling of July 19, 2011 issued. Therefore, the reference to the ruling is invalid.
Finally, according to Clean Coalition, the grants it received for “general nationwide policy work” can fund its participation before the CPUC. Based on these facts, Clean Coalition has been able to participate in our proceedings without a prospect of the intervenor compensation. Clean Coalition's reliance on the presumption of eligibility is misplaced (see, the “CPUC Verified” column, above, secs. 5, 6, 9 – 11). Section 1804(b)(1) provides that “a finding of significant financial hardship shall create a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for compensation in other … proceedings commencing within one year of the date of that finding.” Not only has Clean Coalition exhausted a presumption of eligibility stemming from the Ruling of July 19, 2011, but new facts of Clean Coalition’s economic interests in the Commission’s proceedings, as set out above, impair Clean Coalition’s eligibility and therefore create a rebuttal to any pre-existing presumption of significant financial hardship. Information about these facts provided in A.15-02-009 illustrates Clean Coalition’s regular services on behalf of the private interests of the renewable energy market and industry. Based on the analysis of this information, the ruling of June 30, 2016 determined that Clean Coalition has become ineligible for intervenor compensation. D.16-12-065 denied Clean Coalition’s Motion to Reconsider. When participating in this proceeding, Clean Coalition was aware of the fact that Clean Coalition’s eligibility was under scrutiny in A.15-02-009 and of the June 30, 2016 Ruling denying eligibility. Thus, the record demonstrates that Clean Coalition’s reliance on previous findings of eligibility is misplaced. III. Conclusion The following facts are not in dispute: Clean Coalition contracts with renewable energy entities on a regular basis, and receives remuneration for these projects; Many parties to this proceeding, including Respondents, are Clean Coalition’s actual or potential clients; The issues in this proceeding directly relate to Clean Coalition’s consulting work and the interests of its corporate partners; and If successful, Clean Coalition’s advocacy may expand Clean Coalition’s contractual opportunities in the DER/WDG.
Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s Assertion CPUC Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding? Yes b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes c. If so, provide name of other parties: BAC d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: The Clean Coalition’s positions sometimes overlapped with those of BAC, but our proposals and the justification for our positions were not identical. Further, the Clean Coalition’s reasoning brought a unique perspective from our organization’s experience developing interconnection requirements and designing procurement mechanisms, including the ReMAT program upon which BioMAT is based. Finally, the Clean Coalition presented independent positions intended to further the public interest goal of reducing barriers to the deployment of renewable resources, whereas BAC is an industry association representing commercial interests. Additional Comments on Part II: # Intervenor’s Comment CPUC Discussion PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION (Completed by Intervenor except where indicated) General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: The Clean Coalition independently developed its policy positions based on the organization’s expertise developing interconnection requirements and designing procurement mechanisms. We have developed Feed-in-Tariffs with similar requirements to BioMAT for several municipal utilities. We have also been active in implementing and advocating for refinements to ReMAT, and many of our interconnection proposals stem from this experience. Finally, we have significant expertise regarding interconnection requirements, as evidenced by our participation in the Rule 21 proceeding at the state level and in front of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the federal level. The Clean Coalition devoted significant resources to develop the expertise relied upon in comments, but we seek compensation only for the hours directly associated with our advocacy in this proceeding. CPUC Discussion b. Reasonableness of hours claimed: Clean Coalition staff worked to develop new interconnection requirements for Category 3 projects seeking a contract under the BioMAT tariff. We allocated staff time based on previously developed expertise to ensure efficient participation. Although we have spent