14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: February 13, 2015 Verified. 15. File date of compensation request: March 6, 2015 Verified (amended filing on March 10, 2015). 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes, CFC timely filed the request for compensation. Additional Comments on Part I (use line reference # as appropriate): # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion CFC relies here on the rebuttable presumption of significant 1 Verified. financial hardship and customer status awarded to CFC, by the CPUC, in the finding made in R.13.02.008, on October 25, 2013, establishing the rebuttable presumption that CFC has been granted, by the CPUC, of a finding of both financial hardship and customer status. PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). (For each contribution, support with specific reference to the record.) Intervenor’s Claimed Specific References to CPUC Discussion Contribution(s) Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) 1. Issue: Bridge Funding General Verified, although (Phase One) CFC’s focus on pilot In its Response to Questions from programs, as listed in CFC Order Instituting Ratemaking Response to Questions the claimed (October 21, 2013), at pages 3 and 4, from Instituting contribution, was CFC advised the Commission, that (October 21, 2013), Ratemaking excessive in light of the even though funding for the pages 3 and 4. both the issue covered programs for 2015 and 2016 had and CFC’s contribution been tentatively approved, the actual to the proceeding. amount of funding had yet to be determined. CFC argued, strongly, that the Commission should scrutinize the pilot programs, with a very critical eye toward funding. CFC pointed out that many, many pilot programs had been conducted before the advent of this matter, at
14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: February 13, 2015 Verified. 15. File date of compensation request: March 6, 2015 Verified (amended filing on March 10, 2015). 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes, CFC timely filed the request for compensation. Additional Comments on Part I (use line reference # as appropriate): # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion 1 CFC relies here on the rebuttable presumption of significant financial hardship and customer status awarded to CFC, by the CPUC, in the finding made in R.13.02.008, on October 25, 2013, establishing the rebuttable presumption that CFC has been granted, by the CPUC, of a finding of both financial hardship and customer status. Verified. PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). (For each contribution, support with specific reference to the record.) Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion 1. Issue: Bridge Funding General (Phase One) In its Response to Questions from Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), at pages 3 and 4, CFC advised the Commission, that even though funding for the programs for 2015 and 2016 had been tentatively approved, the actual amount of funding had yet to be determined. CFC argued, strongly, that the Commission should scrutinize the pilot programs, with a very critical eye toward funding. CFC pointed out that many, many pilot programs had been conducted before the advent of this matter, at CFC Response to Questions from Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), pages 3 and 4. Verified, although CFC’s focus on pilot programs, as listed in the claimed contribution, was excessive in light of the both the issue covered and CFC’s contribution to the proceeding.