3. Date NOI filed: January 5, 2014 Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed? Yes Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding R.14-07-002 Verified number: 6. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination n/a (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status? Yes Showing of (§ 1802(g)): “significant financial hardship” 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding R.14-07-002 Verified number: 10. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified 11. Based on another CPUC determination n/a (specify): 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Yes Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: D.16-12-036 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 22, 2016 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: February 21, 2016 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Specific References to Claimed CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Contribution(s) (A) Verified Competitive of the five NRDC provided “Method 5” CFSWG Report recommendations cited in solicitation framework the Decision (D.16-12-036, pp.18-20) to avoid the double-counting of services development, including provided. participation in the NRDC argued that one of the key criteria
3. Date NOI filed: January 5, 2014 Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed? Yes Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.14-07-002 Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): n/a 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status? Yes Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.14-07-002 Verified 10. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified 11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): n/a 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Yes Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: D.16-12-036 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 22, 2016 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: February 21, 2016 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes 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 (A) Competitive solicitation framework development, including participation in the NRDC provided “Method 5” of the five CFSWG Report recommendations cited in the Decision (D.16-12-036, pp.18-20) to avoid the double-counting of services provided. NRDC argued that one of the key criteria Verified
185579111.docx