than the Petitioners), offering a positions were not unique perspective to the adopted, some of Commission that emphasized them did form part of making the securities opinion the Commission’s requirement -- and thus the decision-making ECR program overall -- more process. affordable and accessible to However, some of the ensure participation of low to analysis intervenor’s moderate income ratepayers in their response to and to remove market barriers the petition for to small-scale, modification was out energy projects. of scope of the issues to be considered in the Decision. Overall, SELC recommended Specifically, SELC Response to Petition for that the Commission should notes that Modification, April 26, 2017, at 2-5. adopt the Petition intervenor’s request modifications without Part (iii) that the Commission law firm insurance minimums grant exemptions to to decrease costs for small the securities projects and to not prejudice requirement for small law firms. developers that are nonprofits, cooperatives or Throughout this proceeding, government agencies, SELC has been a leading voice or projects otherwise drawing attention to the See, e.g., SELC Response to Petition sized under 1MW, barriers posed by the earlier for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 5 exceeds the scope of standard for (citing SELC Comments on Phase IV “AmLaw 100” the issues to be ECR securities opinion. SELC Track B Issues, at 5-12 for a through determined in the argued that the discussion of the shortcomings of the Commission’s Decision goal to limit customer and AmLaw 100 standard). at 11). ratepayer risk associated with securities law compliance Intervenor’s could be achieved without comments on the regulatory and financial proposed decision, hurdles that threaten to disable filed on June 26, the ECR program. One 2017, are cited by alternative to the AmLaw100 intervenor as a standard that SELC advocated contribution to the SELC Response to Petition for for was a standard based on final Decision. Modification, April 26, 2017, at 3 knowledge of, and experience However, (supporting Parts (i) and (ii) of the handling, securities issues intervenor’s proposed modifications, in the (reflected in Petition comments to the alternative if the Commission were not modifications Part (i)). SELC proposed decision to eliminate the requirement). also supported a standard that raised the substantive
than the Petitioners), offering a unique perspective to the Commission that emphasized making the securities opinion requirement -- and thus the ECR program overall -- more affordable and accessible to ensure participation of low to moderate income ratepayers and to remove market barriers to small-scale, energy projects. Overall, SELC recommended that the Commission should adopt the Petition modifications without Part (iii) law firm insurance minimums to decrease costs for small projects and to not prejudice small law firms. Throughout this proceeding, SELC has been a leading voice drawing attention to the barriers posed by the earlier “AmLaw 100” standard for ECR securities opinion. SELC argued that the Commission’s goal to limit customer and ratepayer risk associated with securities law compliance could be achieved without regulatory and financial hurdles that threaten to disable the ECR program. One alternative to the AmLaw100 standard that SELC advocated for was a standard based on knowledge of, and experience handling, securities issues (reflected in Petition modifications Part (i)). SELC also supported a standard that SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 2-5. See, e.g., SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 5 (citing SELC Comments on Phase IV Track B Issues, at 5-12 for a through discussion of the shortcomings of the AmLaw 100 standard). SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 3 (supporting Parts (i) and (ii) of the proposed modifications, in the alternative if the Commission were not to eliminate the requirement). positions were not adopted, some of them did form part of the Commission’s decision-making process. However, some of the intervenor’s analysis in their response to the petition for modification was out of scope of the issues to be considered in the Decision. Specifically, notes that intervenor’s request that the Commission grant exemptions to the securities requirement for developers that are nonprofits, cooperatives or government agencies, or projects otherwise sized under 1MW, exceeds the scope of the issues to be determined in the Decision at 11). Intervenor’s comments on the proposed decision, filed on June 26, 2017, are cited by intervenor as a contribution to the final Decision. However, intervenor’s comments to the proposed decision raised the substantive