argued that SoCalGas The Commission declined to shareholders, not approve SoCalGas’ proposal to fund ratepayers, should be ME&O in response to the responsible for funding for Canyon gas leak from ratepayer the ME&O effort directed funds, instead authorizing in response to the gas leak establishment of a memorandum at Aliso Canyon. account for future review. Aliso Canyon Decision at pp. 21-22 and p. 31 (OP 7); see also CforAT/Greenlining Comments on Aliso Canyon Ruling, filed on March 25, 2016, at pp. 5-6. CforAT, in conjunction with Greenlining, supported allocating The Commission cited with approval funding (from CforAT and Greenlining’s argument shareholders) for paid about the distinction between support for Flex Alert. effective and cost-effective outreach CforAT and Greenlining in its decision to support paid media specifically noted the advertising for the Flex Alert distinction between program. Aliso Canyon Decision at and “effective” p. 18; CforAT/Greenlining see also outreach and Comments on Aliso Canyon Ruling argued that the unique at pp. 2-3. nature of the response to the Aliso Canyon leak supported action that may be regardless of “effective” whether it is “cost effective.” CforAT, in conjunction with Greenlining, The Commission approved a budget recommended a paid media of $5M to support paid Flex Alert budget for Flex Alert of advertising in the areas of California $5M, which is proportional affected by the gas leak. Aliso to SCE’s share of the prior Canyon Decision at pp. 18 and 30 year’s budget, to be (OP 1); see also targeted to those areas in CforAT/Greenlining Comments on southern California where Aliso Canyon Ruling at pp. 2-3. generation capacity was This authorization was due to the likely to be impacted. specific situation based on the of Aliso Canyon, and is separate from the general determination in D.15-11-033 that
argued that SoCalGas shareholders, not ratepayers, should be responsible for funding for the ME&O effort directed in response to the gas leak at Aliso Canyon. CforAT, in conjunction with Greenlining, supported allocating funding (from shareholders) for paid support for Flex Alert. CforAT and Greenlining specifically noted the distinction between “effective” and outreach and argued that the unique nature of the response to the Aliso Canyon leak supported action that may be “effective” regardless of whether it is “cost effective.” CforAT, in conjunction with Greenlining, recommended a paid media budget for Flex Alert of $5M, which is proportional to SCE’s share of the prior year’s budget, to be targeted to those areas in southern California where generation capacity was likely to be impacted. The Commission declined to approve SoCalGas’ proposal to fund ME&O in response to the Canyon gas leak from ratepayer funds, instead authorizing establishment of a memorandum account for future review. Aliso Canyon Decision at pp. 21-22 and p. 31 (OP 7); see also CforAT/Greenlining Comments on Aliso Canyon Ruling, filed on March 25, 2016, at pp. 5-6. The Commission cited with approval CforAT and Greenlining’s argument about the distinction between effective and cost-effective outreach in its decision to support paid media advertising for the Flex Alert program. Aliso Canyon Decision at p. 18; see also CforAT/Greenlining Comments on Aliso Canyon Ruling at pp. 2-3. The Commission approved a budget of $5M to support paid Flex Alert advertising in the areas of California affected by the gas leak. Aliso Canyon Decision at pp. 18 and 30 (OP 1); see also CforAT/Greenlining Comments on Aliso Canyon Ruling at pp. 2-3. This authorization was due to the specific situation based on the of Aliso Canyon, and is separate from the general determination in D.15-11-033 that
171627629.docx