Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Specific References to Intervenor’s CPUC Discussion Contribution(s) Claimed Contribution(s) 1. Eliminate/Reduce Public Charge Networks, Verified “CESA, Subsidy for Fossil-Fuel CALSEIA, Tesla, Sierra Club, and Resources: As an $83 million Juicebox support the staff ratepayer funded incentive recommendation to exclude natural gas program, Sierra Club’s primary fueled electric-only fuel cells and aim in this proceeding was to microturbines from SGIP, generally reform SGIP to end/eliminate citing the market transformation, STRC, continued subsidy of fossil-fuel and environmental performance findings reliant technologies given the of the Cost-Effectiveness Study.” disconnect between (Decision p. 16) California’s aggressive decarbonization goals and Staff Proposal’s subsidization of fossil-fueled “While recommendation to keep electric-only resources. Sierra Club began fuel cells out of the Program is not this effort during the update to adopted, it is reasonable to significantly SGIP’s GHG eligibility weigh incentives in the budget towards threshold (Sierra Club is not energy storage [sic] in light of the seeking compensation for this program’s goals of reducing GHGs, work because it predated the providing grid support and enabling NOI) and continued with market transformation.” (Finding of supportive comments on Fact 14 (p. 66)) Energy Division’s Staff Proposal, which recommended eliminating SGIP funding for various fossil-fueled technologies. (Sierra Club and NRDC Opening Comments on Energy Division Staff Proposal, Jan. 7, 2016; Reply Comments on Energy Division Staff Proposal, Jan. 22, 2016). 40% set aside within the generation “A The Proposed Decision technology category represents a ultimately allowed guaranteed level of funding that technologies to receive balances the important goal of SGIP funding, but limited supporting market transformation and generation technologies to 25% enhancing GHG reductions while not of SGIP funds. In PD creating too much of a disadvantage for comments, Sierra Club argued the percent reserved for
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 1. Eliminate/Reduce Public Subsidy for Fossil-Fuel Resources: As an $83 million ratepayer funded incentive program, Sierra Club’s primary aim in this proceeding was to reform SGIP to end/eliminate continued subsidy of fossil-fuel reliant technologies given the disconnect between California’s aggressive decarbonization goals and subsidization of fossil-fueled resources. Sierra Club began this effort during the update to SGIP’s GHG eligibility threshold (Sierra Club is not seeking compensation for this work because it predated the NOI) and continued with supportive comments on Energy Division’s Staff Proposal, which recommended eliminating SGIP funding for various fossil-fueled technologies. (Sierra Club and NRDC Opening Comments on Energy Division Staff Proposal, Jan. 7, 2016; Reply Comments on Energy Division Staff Proposal, Jan. 22, 2016). The Proposed Decision ultimately allowed technologies to receive SGIP funding, but limited generation technologies to 25% of SGIP funds. In PD comments, Sierra Club argued the percent reserved for “CESA, Charge Networks, CALSEIA, Tesla, Sierra Club, and Juicebox support the staff recommendation to exclude natural gas fueled electric-only fuel cells and microturbines from SGIP, generally citing the market transformation, STRC, and environmental performance findings of the Cost-Effectiveness Study.” (Decision p. 16) “While Staff Proposal’s recommendation to keep electric-only fuel cells out of the Program is not adopted, it is reasonable to significantly weigh incentives in the budget towards energy storage [sic] in light of the program’s goals of reducing GHGs, providing grid support and enabling market transformation.” (Finding of Fact 14 (p. 66)) “A 40% set aside within the generation technology category represents a guaranteed level of funding that balances the important goal of supporting market transformation and enhancing GHG reductions while not creating too much of a disadvantage for Verified