argued for a steeper 130% of baseline differential. Vote Solar also quantity. The D.15-07-001, pdf, pp. 109, 114, supported a reduction in the decision found that a number of tiers. two-tier rate with a 25% differential as The Decision rejected the utilities 20% optimal. Vote Solar’s differential between tiers, and adopted a proposal was not higher differential. adopted, but it parties including…Vote “Other contributed to the Solar…argue for a steeper differential.” discussion and (D.15-07-001 at p. 109.) analysis of the tiered rate structure that was two-tier rate with a 25% differential “A ultimately adopted. will encourage overall conservation Many parties while reducing bill volatility.” advocated tiered-rate at p. 114.) structures similar to all three utilities, our approved “For that proposed by structure sets an end-state of 2 tiers with Vote Solar. Vote a 25% differential on a glidepath that Solar’s contribution extends to 2019.” (D.15-07-001 at p. on this issue was not 270.) unique. 9. Vote Solar recommended Vote Solar Opening Brief, dated Jan. 5, Accepted. that a shortfall or 2015, pp. 24-25. undercollection from customers on rates that resulted D.15-07-001, pdf, pp. 160, 162, 331 in a cross-subsidy be spread (Concl. of Law No. 47). among ratepayers. (at p. 331, Concl. of Law No. 47, “Any revenue shortfall resulting from optional TOU rate schedules should be recovered from all residential customers.”) Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s CPUC Assertion Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to Yes Yes. the proceeding? Yes. b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions Yes similar to yours? Vote Solar was the only party below, II.B.d. c. If so, provide name of other parties: See primarily focused on changes to the IOUs’ existing, optional TOU rate schedules, and how changes to those schedules would impact existing
argued for a steeper differential. Vote Solar also supported a reduction in the number of tiers. D.15-07-001, pdf, pp. 109, 114, The Decision rejected the utilities 20% differential between tiers, and adopted a higher differential. “Other parties including…Vote Solar…argue for a steeper differential.” (D.15-07-001 at p. 109.) “A two-tier rate with a 25% differential will encourage overall conservation while reducing bill volatility.” at p. 114.) “For all three utilities, our approved structure sets an end-state of 2 tiers with a 25% differential on a glidepath that extends to 2019.” (D.15-07-001 at p. 270.) 130% of baseline quantity. The decision found that a two-tier rate with a 25% differential as optimal. Vote Solar’s proposal was not adopted, but it contributed to the discussion and analysis of the tiered rate structure that was ultimately adopted. Many parties advocated tiered-rate structures similar to that proposed by Vote Solar. Vote Solar’s contribution on this issue was not unique. 9. Vote Solar recommended that a shortfall or undercollection from customers on rates that resulted in a cross-subsidy be spread among ratepayers. Vote Solar Opening Brief, dated Jan. 5, 2015, pp. 24-25. D.15-07-001, pdf, pp. 160, 162, 331 (Concl. of Law No. 47). (at p. 331, Concl. of Law No. 47, “Any revenue shortfall resulting from optional TOU rate schedules should be recovered from all residential customers.”) Accepted. 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 Yes. b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Yes. c. If so, provide name of other parties: Vote Solar was the only party primarily focused on changes to the IOUs’ existing, optional TOU rate schedules, and how changes to those schedules would impact existing See below, II.B.d.