PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Specific References to Intervenor’s CPUC Discussion Contribution(s) Claimed Contribution(s) CforAT worked to ensure CforAT worked to ensure that outreach Verified. that education and outreach efforts effectively target regarding the GHG allowance customers, including people with would be effective, including disabilities through use of accessible efforts to reach hard-to-reach formats. CforAT Comments on See customers and accessible submitted on October 7, 2013, communications with customers addressing outreach to hard-to-reach with disabilities, as well as populations, including people with general customer understanding. disabilities (Resolution E-4611 rejected IOU Advice Letters for failing to provide effective messaging and failing to eliminate duplicative spending. Final Decision at See p. 3); CforAT and Greenlining Joint Comments on Scoping Memo (Joint Comments on Scoping Memo), filed on March 6, 2015 at pp. 1-3; CforAT and Greenlining Opening Brief on Joint Assigned Commissioner’s and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling and Scoping Memo (Joint Scoping Memo Brief), filed on May 29, 2015, at pp. 1-2. Consistent with overall Opening Brief of the Greenlining Institute, Verified. efforts to improve customer Natural Resources Defense Council, and the awareness and understanding, Center for Accessible Technology on Phase CforAT supported changing the 1 Issues (Joint Phase 1 Brief), filed on naming flexibility to improve December 6, 2013, at p. 7. customer understanding of the GHG program. CforAT worked to ensure CforAT Comments on Resolution Verified. See e.g. that the GHG allowance program E-4611, submitted on October 7, 2013. would be managed in an effective Initially, the Commission rejected the IOUs’ and cost-effective manner, proposals for outreach as lacking including efficient governance competitive neutrality and failing to provide and oversight of outreach efforts efficient and effective messaging. See (including efforts to address flaws Decision at pp. 3-4, discussion Resolution in the IOUs’ 2013 greenhouse gas E-4611. allowance education and outreach plans, which were eventually rejected in Resolution E-4611). As part of efforts to support effective governance, CforAT supported ongoing reliance on a
PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion CforAT worked to ensure that education and outreach regarding the GHG allowance would be effective, including efforts to reach hard-to-reach customers and accessible communications with customers with disabilities, as well as general customer understanding. CforAT worked to ensure that outreach efforts effectively target customers, including people with disabilities through use of accessible formats. See CforAT Comments on submitted on October 7, 2013, addressing outreach to hard-to-reach populations, including people with disabilities (Resolution E-4611 rejected IOU Advice Letters for failing to provide effective messaging and failing to eliminate duplicative spending. See Final Decision at p. 3); CforAT and Greenlining Joint Comments on Scoping Memo (Joint Comments on Scoping Memo), filed on March 6, 2015 at pp. 1-3; CforAT and Greenlining Opening Brief on Joint Assigned Commissioner’s and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling and Scoping Memo (Joint Scoping Memo Brief), filed on May 29, 2015, at pp. 1-2. Verified. Consistent with overall efforts to improve customer awareness and understanding, CforAT supported changing the naming flexibility to improve customer understanding of the GHG program. Opening Brief of the Greenlining Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Accessible Technology on Phase 1 Issues (Joint Phase 1 Brief), filed on December 6, 2013, at p. 7. Verified. CforAT worked to ensure that the GHG allowance program would be managed in an effective and cost-effective manner, including efficient governance and oversight of outreach efforts (including efforts to address flaws in the IOUs’ 2013 greenhouse gas allowance education and outreach plans, which were eventually rejected in Resolution E-4611). As part of efforts to support effective governance, CforAT supported ongoing reliance on a See e.g. CforAT Comments on Resolution E-4611, submitted on October 7, 2013. Initially, the Commission rejected the IOUs’ proposals for outreach as lacking competitive neutrality and failing to provide efficient and effective messaging. See Decision at pp. 3-4, discussion Resolution E-4611. Verified.
168669392.docx