findings regarding the similar EV program proposed by SDG&E and approved as modified in D.16-01-045. The Settling Parties have relied extensively on the guidance and findings of the Commission in - 25) (pp. 24 In D.16-01-045, the Commission agreed with and adopted Vote Solar’s recommendation to include consideration of the DRP in the site selection. Since proposed settlement PG&E’s cites adherence to D.16-01-045 as rationale for modifying their previous proposals, along with our testimony which identified the lack of coordination with the DRP, we believe PG&E’s decision to ultimately include DRP coordination in the Settlement was a direct result of Vote intervention in Solar’s these two proceedings. D.16-12-065: “…other parties argue Issue B. Mitigating Verified against utility ownership in general. Competitive and Ratepayer Vote Solar captures this line of Impacts thinking where it argues: Opening Brief of Vote Solar, [A]pproving the Settlement June 17, 2016: Agreement would give PG&E an contend that approving unfair advantage by allowing it to “We the Settlement Agreement cherry-pick the most profitable would give PG&E an unfair charging opportunities within its advantage by allowing it to region, all while being backed by cherry-pick the most profitable ratepayer recovery options that are charging opportunities within not available to private competitors. its region, all while being We find this logic compelling and backed by ratepayer recovery share this concern.” (p. 35) options that are not available to
findings regarding the similar EV program proposed by SDG&E and approved as modified in D.16-01-045. The Settling Parties have relied extensively on the guidance and findings of the Commission in (pp. 24 - 25) In D.16-01-045, the Commission agreed with and adopted Vote Solar’s recommendation to include consideration of the DRP in the site selection. Since PG&E’s proposed settlement cites adherence to D.16-01-045 as rationale for modifying their previous proposals, along with our testimony which identified the lack of coordination with the DRP, we believe PG&E’s decision to ultimately include DRP coordination in the Settlement was a direct result of Vote Solar’s intervention in these two proceedings. Issue B. Mitigating Competitive and Ratepayer Impacts Opening Brief of Vote Solar, June 17, 2016: “We contend that approving the Settlement Agreement would give PG&E an unfair advantage by allowing it to cherry-pick the most profitable charging opportunities within its region, all while being backed by ratepayer recovery options that are not available to D.16-12-065: “…other parties argue against utility ownership in general. Vote Solar captures this line of thinking where it argues: [A]pproving the Settlement Agreement would give PG&E an unfair advantage by allowing it to cherry-pick the most profitable charging opportunities within its region, all while being backed by ratepayer recovery options that are not available to private competitors. We find this logic compelling and share this concern.” (p. 35) Verified