(B) The Commission voiced concerns (B) CforAT questioned that SCE’s proposal would reduce the whether the Commission could awareness, understanding, and effectively conduct outreach to engagement of the statewide ME&O the impacted customers campaign for customers. (See Final without the data from the pilot Decision at p. 5). programs, specifically raising concerns and awareness for customer’s right to opt out or the right to be excluded in certain situations. (CforAT’s Protest at p. 3). (C) The Commission raised concerns (C) CforAT questioned effective exclusion of customers whether the Commission under Section 745, especially since the effectively exclude customers parameters of Section 745 were still other than those identified for being established at the time of this exclusion or review under Decision. (See Final Decision, 5). Section 745 within SCE’s proposed timeframe with such limited data. (CforAT’s Protest, 3). Verified 2. CforAT made a procedural CforAT opposed SCE’s request for contribution by opposing shortened time to respond to the SCE’s Motion for an Order Application in Center for “The Shortening Time for the Accessible Technology’s Comments on Application. Southern California Edison Company’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time,” filed on April 21, 2017. We argued that a shortened schedule even for protesting the Application would be difficult for small intervenors to manage in conjunction with the overall RROIR docket (R.12-06-013), which consists of multiple tracks with voluminous information and proposals from all three IOUs. Additionally, CforAT provided a task list that highlighted the numerous ongoing activities under the RRIOR docket. The Commission rejected SCE’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time through
(B) CforAT questioned whether the Commission could effectively conduct outreach to the impacted customers without the data from the pilot programs, specifically raising concerns and awareness for customer’s right to opt out or the right to be excluded in certain situations. (CforAT’s Protest at p. 3). (C) CforAT questioned whether the Commission effectively exclude customers other than those identified for exclusion or review under Section 745 within SCE’s proposed timeframe with such limited data. (CforAT’s Protest, 3). (B) The Commission voiced concerns that SCE’s proposal would reduce the awareness, understanding, and engagement of the statewide ME&O campaign for customers. (See Final Decision at p. 5). (C) The Commission raised concerns effective exclusion of customers under Section 745, especially since the parameters of Section 745 were still being established at the time of this Decision. (See Final Decision, 5). 2. CforAT made a procedural contribution by opposing SCE’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time for the Application. CforAT opposed SCE’s request for shortened time to respond to the Application in “The Center for Accessible Technology’s Comments on Southern California Edison Company’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time,” filed on April 21, 2017. We argued that a shortened schedule even for protesting the Application would be difficult for small intervenors to manage in conjunction with the overall RROIR docket (R.12-06-013), which consists of multiple tracks with voluminous information and proposals from all three IOUs. Additionally, CforAT provided a task list that highlighted the numerous ongoing activities under the RRIOR docket. The Commission rejected SCE’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time through Verified
200035146.docx