CHANGES: CforAT supported continued funding for Verified. the CHANGES program through the CforAT closely followed 2012-2014 low-income program cycle, activity around the CHANGES and opposed efforts by the IOUs to take program to ensure that it direct responsibility to administer the allows inclusion of program directly. Reply Comments See related CBOs and to support its on the CHANGES PD filed jointly by ongoing viability. TURN, CforAT, DRA, and the Greenlining Institute on December 17, 2012 at pp. 1-2 and CHANGES Decision at pp.36-42. See also Phase 2 Decision at pp. 81 (further extending the program into the 2015-2017 program cycle) and CforAT’s Reply Comments on AD at p. 3 (in support of the extension of CHANGES). Other Implementation CforAT’s contributions to the various Verified. Issues: implementation issues are noted in our time records (including participation in CforAT monitored work in scheduled workshops and input on draft Phase 2 to implement various reports); CforAT’s Opening see also orders from Phase 1, including Comments on PD at p. 5; CforAT’s various reports, workshops, Reply Comments on PD at pp. 2-3; and and other activity. Where CforAT’s Opening Comments on AD at appropriate, CforAT pp. 5-6 reflecting CforAT’s coordination participated in these efforts to with other parties and support for support effective program effective resolution of concerns implementation for our regarding various implementation constituency. For example, issues. . while CforAT was not as active as other parties in efforts such as review of ESAP measures (including energy education, multi-family issues, or the mid-cycle working group, we reviewed activity in each of these program areas and made contributions to maximize effectiveness for people with disabilities.
CHANGES: CforAT closely followed activity around the CHANGES program to ensure that it allows inclusion of CBOs and to support its ongoing viability. CforAT supported continued funding for the CHANGES program through the 2012-2014 low-income program cycle, and opposed efforts by the IOUs to take direct responsibility to administer the program directly. See Reply Comments on the CHANGES PD filed jointly by TURN, CforAT, DRA, and the Greenlining Institute on December 17, 2012 at pp. 1-2 and CHANGES Decision at pp.36-42. See also Phase 2 Decision at pp. 81 (further extending the program into the 2015-2017 program cycle) and CforAT’s Reply Comments on AD at p. 3 (in support of the extension of CHANGES). Verified. Other Implementation Issues: CforAT monitored work in Phase 2 to implement various orders from Phase 1, including various reports, workshops, and other activity. Where appropriate, CforAT participated in these efforts to support effective program implementation for our constituency. For example, while CforAT was not as active as other parties in efforts such as review of ESAP measures (including energy education, multi-family issues, or the mid-cycle working group, we reviewed activity in each of these program areas and made contributions to maximize effectiveness for people with disabilities. CforAT’s contributions to the various implementation issues are noted in our time records (including participation in scheduled workshops and input on draft reports); see also CforAT’s Opening Comments on PD at p. 5; CforAT’s Reply Comments on PD at pp. 2-3; and CforAT’s Opening Comments on AD at pp. 5-6 reflecting CforAT’s coordination with other parties and support for effective resolution of concerns regarding various implementation issues. . Verified. related
160014923.docx