See Also: JMP Opening Brief at 12-17. JMP Reply Brief at 3-9, 12-14. JMP Reply Comments on PD at 3-4 Rejection of Proposed Settlement Verified Response of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, the Utility Reform Network, The Joint Minority Parties (JMP) Electric Vehicle Charging Association, participated in settlement TechNet, ChargePoint, Joint Minority discussions and ultimately found Parties and Vote Solar to the Motion for the terms offered by PG&E and Adoption of Settlement Agreement the settling parties to be Response to Settlement (4/1/2016) (“Joint insufficient, and not consistent at 10-11, 13-14. Motion”) with the law. JMP advocated for the rejection of the proposed Comments of the Joint Minority Parties on settlement, arguing among other the Proposed Settlement Agreement by points for a limited utility (4/12/2016) Settling Parties, (“JMP ownership model, exclusion of Comments on Settlement”). DCFC stations, reductions in cost Reply Comments of the Joint Minority and size, focus on underserved Parties on the Proposed Settlement market segments, and provisions (4/18/2016) Reply Agreement (“JMP for disadvantaged communities. Comments on Settlement”) 3-5. The final Decision rejected the Decision at 6, 7, 30-33. proposed settlement, and incorporated terms into the Final Program in line with JMP recommendations. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): CPUC Intervenor’s Assertion Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to Yes Verified the proceeding? b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions Yes Verified similar to yours? Verified c. If so, provide name of other parties: ORA, TURN, ChargePoint d. claim of non-duplication: Verified Intervenor’s ORA and TURN represent ratepayer interests generally, and as such, their positions aligned with those of JMP on certain issues. Throughout the proceeding, JMP made efforts to communicate and coordinate with other ratepayer advocates to avoid duplication, and jointly filed when it was appropriate. However, the other ratepayer advocates do not represent the same minority communities as JMP, and do not have the same direct grassroots involvement in
See Also: JMP Opening Brief at 12-17. JMP Reply Brief at 3-9, 12-14. JMP Reply Comments on PD at 3-4 Rejection of Proposed Settlement The Joint Minority Parties (JMP) participated in settlement discussions and ultimately found the terms offered by PG&E and the settling parties to be insufficient, and not consistent with the law. JMP advocated for the rejection of the proposed settlement, arguing among other points for a limited utility ownership model, exclusion of DCFC stations, reductions in cost and size, focus on underserved market segments, and provisions for disadvantaged communities. The final Decision rejected the proposed settlement, and incorporated terms into the Final Program in line with JMP recommendations. Response of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, the Utility Reform Network, Electric Vehicle Charging Association, TechNet, ChargePoint, Joint Minority Parties and Vote Solar to the Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement (4/1/2016) (“Joint Response to Settlement Motion”) at 10-11, 13-14. Comments of the Joint Minority Parties on the Proposed Settlement Agreement by Settling Parties, (4/12/2016) (“JMP Comments on Settlement”). Reply Comments of the Joint Minority Parties on the Proposed Settlement Agreement (4/18/2016) (“JMP Reply Comments on Settlement”) 3-5. Decision at 6, 7, 30-33. Verified 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 Verified b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Verified c. If so, provide name of other parties: ORA, TURN, ChargePoint Verified d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: ORA and TURN represent ratepayer interests generally, and as such, their positions aligned with those of JMP on certain issues. Throughout the proceeding, JMP made efforts to communicate and coordinate with other ratepayer advocates to avoid duplication, and jointly filed when it was appropriate. However, the other ratepayer advocates do not represent the same minority communities as JMP, and do not have the same direct grassroots involvement in Verified
181138957.docx