compensation based on a showing of significant financial hardship. At this time, the most recent determination that we have made a sufficient showing is over one year old, and is thus outside of the window for the rebuttable presumption of hardship to apply. CforAT has recently submitted a request for a renewed finding of significant financial hardship in our request for intervenor compensation, filed on January 11, 2017 in A. 14-11-007 et al, the CARE/ESA Proceeding. 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) General CforAT’s substantive This proceeding was opened in order to contributions to assist the allow the Commission to obtain “a Commission in its snapshot of the telecommunications “snapshot” review of the marketplace in California, with an ‘as state of competition in the of’ date of December 31, 2015.” Final telecommunications Decision at p. 9. More broadly, it was marketplace, and our intended to follow up on the specific efforts to describe Commission’s stated intent in its URF the way that our Decisions, issued in 2006 and 2008, to constituency of consumers “remain ‘vigilant’ and monitor the with disabilities (who are changes in traditional landline prices disproportionately and services following deregulation.” and who have Final Decision at p. 5. specialized needs for As recounted in the Final Decision’s services) include: procedural history, the carriers opposed Testimony of Kathryn every effort by the Commission and Woodford, admitted into parties to obtain granular information the record as Exhibit 64 about the state of competition in the (Woodford Testimony); market, forcing extensive procedural work in order for sufficient information Testimony of Dmitri to become available to allow any review Belser, adopted at whatsoever to take place. The carriers’ hearing by Melissa opposition to efforts to move this Kasnitz and admitted proceeding forward included “motions into the record as Exhibit
compensation based on a showing of significant financial hardship. At this time, the most recent determination that we have made a sufficient showing is over one year old, and is thus outside of the window for the rebuttable presumption of hardship to apply. CforAT has recently submitted a request for a renewed finding of significant financial hardship in our request for intervenor compensation, filed on January 11, 2017 in A. 14-11-007 et al, the CARE/ESA Proceeding. 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 General CforAT’s substantive contributions to assist the Commission in its “snapshot” review of the state of competition in the telecommunications marketplace, and our specific efforts to describe the way that our constituency of consumers with disabilities (who are disproportionately and who have specialized needs for services) include: Testimony of Kathryn Woodford, admitted into the record as Exhibit 64 (Woodford Testimony); Testimony of Dmitri Belser, adopted at hearing by Melissa Kasnitz and admitted into the record as Exhibit This proceeding was opened in order to allow the Commission to obtain “a snapshot of the telecommunications marketplace in California, with an ‘as of’ date of December 31, 2015.” Final Decision at p. 9. More broadly, it was intended to follow up on the Commission’s stated intent in its URF Decisions, issued in 2006 and 2008, to “remain ‘vigilant’ and monitor the changes in traditional landline prices and services following deregulation.” Final Decision at p. 5. As recounted in the Final Decision’s procedural history, the carriers opposed every effort by the Commission and parties to obtain granular information about the state of competition in the market, forcing extensive procedural work in order for sufficient information to become available to allow any review whatsoever to take place. The carriers’ opposition to efforts to move this proceeding forward included “motions
180441723.docx