final decision closing proceeding “A R.10-05-006 has not been issued. Therefore, the request is timely pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 1804(c).” The Commission should apply the same standard to the instant request by finding that request is Reid’s timely under PU Code § 1804(c). PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Claimed Specific References to CPUC Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Contribution(s) Claimed Contribution(s) Discussion 1. Additional Security Reid recommended that Commission Verified “The should not require any additional security from projects that have received a Phase 1 study but have left the interconnection queue while bidding into BioMAT.” (Comments of L. Jan Reid on the Bioenergy Feed-In Tariff, August 24, 2016 (Reid FIT Comments), p. 1) Although the Commission did not adopt recommendation, Reid made a Reid’s substantial contribution to the of the Additional Commission’s resolution Security issue. Reid recommended that Commission Verified “The 2. Developer Refunds should order that the BioMAT deposits shall be refunded to the project developer only if the developer has executed a BioMAT (Reid contract with an IOU.” FIT Comments, p, 1) The Commission agreed with Reid when it ordered that to be refunded “the deposit [is] upon the of a developer’s execution BioMAT standard contract with the IOU.” (D.16-10-025, slip op. at 3)
“A final decision closing proceeding R.10-05-006 has not been issued. Therefore, the request is timely pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 1804(c).” The Commission should apply the same standard to the instant request by finding that Reid’s request is timely under PU Code § 1804(c). 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 1. Additional Security Reid recommended that “The Commission should not require any additional security from projects that have received a Phase 1 study but have left the interconnection queue while bidding into BioMAT.” (Comments of L. Jan Reid on the Bioenergy Feed-In Tariff, August 24, 2016 (Reid FIT Comments), p. 1) Although the Commission did not adopt Reid’s recommendation, Reid made a substantial contribution to the Commission’s resolution of the Additional Security issue. Verified 2. Developer Refunds Reid recommended that “The Commission should order that the BioMAT deposits shall be refunded to the project developer only if the developer has executed a BioMAT contract with an IOU.” (Reid FIT Comments, p, 1) The Commission agreed with Reid when it ordered that “the deposit [is] to be refunded upon the developer’s execution of a BioMAT standard contract with the IOU.” (D.16-10-025, slip op. at 3) Verified
185718210.docx