to affirmatively accept California and Denying in Part the Petition of Commission jurisdiction during their Nevada Hydro Co. to Institute a filings. Rulemaking to Determine Whether to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal Regulations, pp. 4-5. Opening Brief of CFC, pp. 2-3. In support of its position, CFC explained how the Commission had jurisdiction over parties which avail themselves of the Commission’s processes, including the application D.16-08-025, p. 1. process. The Decision ultimately adopts the new Rule 17.5 which incorporates Alternate 2. The Decision holds that Alternate 2 is the most appropriate choice. 2. Mechanism’s to Ensure Payment CFC supported the adoption of a bond requirement. Verified. Opening Brief of CFC, pp. 4-5. Through the new rule, the Decision adopts the bond requirement. D.16-08-025, p. 7; Appendix A.: Rule 17.5(a). 3. Mechanisms to Pass on Costs Verified. Finally, CFC asserted that the Opening Comments of CFC on the Commission did not have jurisdiction to Decision Granting In Part and provide any applicants permission to Denying in Part the Petition of pass any application costs onto its own Nevada Hydro Co. to Institute a out of state ratepayers. However, the Rulemaking to Determine Whether Commission did have jurisdiction to to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal require any party availing itself of the Regulations, p. 5. Commission processes to agree to pay intervenor fees and post a bond. The Decision ultimately agrees this is within its jurisdiction. D.16-08-025, p. 3; Appendix A.: Rule 17.5(a).
to affirmatively accept California and Commission jurisdiction during their filings. In support of its position, CFC explained how the Commission had jurisdiction over parties which avail themselves of the Commission’s processes, including the application process. The Decision ultimately adopts the new Rule 17.5 which incorporates Alternate 2. The Decision holds that Alternate 2 is the most appropriate choice. Denying in Part the Petition of Nevada Hydro Co. to Institute a Rulemaking to Determine Whether to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal Regulations, pp. 4-5. Opening Brief of CFC, pp. 2-3. D.16-08-025, p. 1. 2. Mechanism’s to Ensure Payment CFC supported the adoption of a bond requirement. Through the new rule, the Decision adopts the bond requirement. Opening Brief of CFC, pp. 4-5. D.16-08-025, p. 7; Appendix A.: Rule 17.5(a). Verified. 3. Mechanisms to Pass on Costs Finally, CFC asserted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to provide any applicants permission to pass any application costs onto its own out of state ratepayers. However, the Commission did have jurisdiction to require any party availing itself of the Commission processes to agree to pay intervenor fees and post a bond. The Decision ultimately agrees this is within its jurisdiction. Opening Comments of CFC on the Decision Granting In Part and Denying in Part the Petition of Nevada Hydro Co. to Institute a Rulemaking to Determine Whether to Adopt, Amend, or Repeal Regulations, p. 5. D.16-08-025, p. 3; Appendix A.: Rule 17.5(a). Verified.