13. Identify Final Decision: D.17-08-024 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 8/25/2017 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: 10/04/2017 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes Additional Comments on Part I: # Comment(s) CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s This Application was dismissed CforAT has already been found eligible in a 1-3 without a PHC or other opportunity prior proceeding. for interested parties to file a NOI. Per Rule 17(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission could have set a deadline, but did not do so during the brief period this Application was pending. Because there was no opportunity to file a NOI, CforAT is making its showing of eligibility here. PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059). Claimed Specific References to CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Contribution(s) Claimed Contribution(s) Verified 1. CforAT raised multiple While the Decision did not cite to objections to the proposals set Protest when rejecting CforAT’s SCE’s forth in Application in Application, the SCE’s Commission’s for Accessible reasoning mirrored concerns: “Center CforAT’s Protest to Technology’s SCE’s Proposal for Default Rates” (CforAT’s Protest), filed on May 15, 2017: (A) The Commission noted that SCE’s (A) CforAT questioned proposal would not incorporate the data whether the Commission could from the pilot programs under the
13. Identify Final Decision: D.17-08-024 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 8/25/2017 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: 10/04/2017 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes Additional Comments on Part I: # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion 1-3 This Application was dismissed without a PHC or other opportunity for interested parties to file a NOI. Per Rule 17(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission could have set a deadline, but did not do so during the brief period this Application was pending. Because there was no opportunity to file a NOI, CforAT is making its showing of eligibility here. CforAT has already been found eligible in a prior proceeding. PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion 1. CforAT raised multiple objections to the proposals set forth in SCE’s Application in “Center for Accessible Technology’s Protest to SCE’s Proposal for Default Rates” (CforAT’s Protest), filed on May 15, 2017: (A) CforAT questioned whether the Commission could While the Decision did not cite to CforAT’s Protest when rejecting SCE’s Application, the Commission’s reasoning mirrored CforAT’s concerns: (A) The Commission noted that SCE’s proposal would not incorporate the data from the pilot programs under the Verified
197267875.docx