multiple family buildings served by a single meter do not pay for most of the water used at the highest rate, that the seasonal increased rates be limited to those months when tourism was the highest and that second home owners contribute more to fixed costs through a higher service charge. 6. ORA and TURN strongly The transfer to electric ratepayers is We do not address opposed the transfer of capital described in the Decision pp 1-2. whether Protestants improvement to SCE’s made substantial mainland customers at all contributions to stages of the proceedings. D.14-10-048 because Ultimately, Protestants’ Protestants have not advocate, Protestants’ counsel satisfied the and SCE were able to convince requirements of ORA and TURN to support the § 1804(b) and are not transfer approved in the eligible for Decision. compensation. See Part I(C), CPUC’s Additional Comments and Discussion. 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 the proceeding? b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions No similar to yours? c. If so, provide name of other parties: Protestants represented the interests d. Intervenors’ claim of non-duplication: We do not of all of the water ratepayers. While ORA and TURN participated in the address whether proceedings, they largely supported the increase in Revenue Requirement and duplication Rate Base sought by SCE as described above and strongly opposed the occurred because transfer of capital expenditures on the water system to SCE’s mainland Protestants have electrical customers. ORA and TURN opposed much of the Proposed not satisfied the Decision of ALJ Barnett issued 4/23/12 and revised 6/13/12. Both ORA and requirements of TURN sought a higher Revenue Requirement, a substantial increase in the § 1804(b) and
multiple family buildings served by a single meter do not pay for most of the water used at the highest rate, that the seasonal increased rates be limited to those months when tourism was the highest and that second home owners contribute more to fixed costs through a higher service charge. 6. ORA and TURN strongly opposed the transfer of capital improvement to SCE’s mainland customers at all stages of the proceedings. Ultimately, Protestants’ advocate, Protestants’ counsel and SCE were able to convince ORA and TURN to support the transfer approved in the Decision. The transfer to electric ratepayers is described in the Decision pp 1-2. We do not address whether Protestants made substantial contributions to D.14-10-048 because Protestants have not satisfied the requirements of § 1804(b) and are not eligible for compensation. See Part I(C), CPUC’s Additional Comments and Discussion. 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 b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? No c. If so, provide name of other parties: d. Intervenors’ claim of non-duplication: Protestants represented the interests of all of the water ratepayers. While ORA and TURN participated in the proceedings, they largely supported the increase in Revenue Requirement and Rate Base sought by SCE as described above and strongly opposed the transfer of capital expenditures on the water system to SCE’s mainland electrical customers. ORA and TURN opposed much of the Proposed Decision of ALJ Barnett issued 4/23/12 and revised 6/13/12. Both ORA and TURN sought a higher Revenue Requirement, a substantial increase in the We do not address whether duplication occurred because Protestants have not satisfied the requirements of § 1804(b) and
171262202.docx