1. Section 745 Issues PHC Statement of Verified; However, CFC as Requested in CFC Foundation’s CFC argued that the residential the Requested in the contributions to tenure requirements for seniors Sep. 30, 2016 ALJ’s D.16-09-016 were living at a particular customer Ruling Inviting PHC duplicative of location had not been fully Statements and contributions made established, and should be during Setting Next Steps by other intervenors Following the the proceeding. such as Center for September 12, 2016 Accessible ME&O Workshop, Technology, The p.3 Utility Reform Opening Brief of Network, and Utility CFC as Requested in Consumers Action the Oct. 15, 2015 Network. This ALJ Scoping Memo duplication is and Ruling for underscored by the Phase 3, pp. 2-3. fact that the only Comments of CFC on reference to CFC the PD on the Foundation in the Requirements of CA discussion sections Public Utilities Code of D.16-09-016 Section 745 for states that Default TOU Rates for Residential “numerous parties Customers, pp. 2-4. (TURN, CforAT, UCAN, CFC) Opening Brief of objected to the CFC on the exclusion of Commission’s Examination of customers who are PUCode Section 745 eligible but not Issues, pp. 1-2. enrolled in these programs.” In D.16-09-016, pp. CFC argued that bill protection is addition, the 1011. only really effective if the following references D. 17-09-036, p. 11. participation rate (enrollees as a % did not appear to be of eligible customers) is sufficiently relevant: high. CFC recommended improved Opening Brief of CFC PHC Statement of on the outreach to improve enrollment. CFC as Requested in Commission’s Examination of the Requested in the PUCode Section 745 Sep. 30, 2016 ALJ’s Issues, pp. 1-2 Ruling Inviting PHC (notably, CFC cites Statements and Setting Next Steps “Nexant findings” yet, at the time this brief Following the was filed, Nexant had September 12, 2016 not made any ME&O Workshop, findings); pp. 1-2. 10-11.
1. Section 745 Issues CFC argued that the residential tenure requirements for seniors living at a particular customer location had not been fully established, and should be during the proceeding. CFC argued that bill protection is only really effective if the participation rate (enrollees as a % of eligible customers) is sufficiently high. CFC recommended improved outreach to improve enrollment. PHC Statement of CFC as Requested in the Requested in the Sep. 30, 2016 ALJ’s Ruling Inviting PHC Statements and Setting Next Steps Following the September 12, 2016 ME&O Workshop, p.3 Opening Brief of CFC as Requested in the Oct. 15, 2015 ALJ Scoping Memo and Ruling for Phase 3, pp. 2-3. Comments of CFC on the PD on the Requirements of CA Public Utilities Code Section 745 for Default TOU Rates for Residential Customers, pp. 2-4. Opening Brief of CFC on the Commission’s Examination of PUCode Section 745 Issues, pp. 1-2. D.16-09-016, pp. 1011. D. 17-09-036, p. 11. PHC Statement of CFC as Requested in the Requested in the Sep. 30, 2016 ALJ’s Ruling Inviting PHC Statements and Setting Next Steps Following the September 12, 2016 ME&O Workshop, pp. 1-2. Verified; However, CFC Foundation’s contributions to D.16-09-016 were duplicative of contributions made by other intervenors such as Center for Accessible Technology, The Utility Reform Network, and Utility Consumers Action Network. This duplication is underscored by the fact that the only reference to CFC Foundation in the discussion sections of D.16-09-016 states that “numerous parties (TURN, CforAT, UCAN, CFC) objected to the exclusion of customers who are eligible but not enrolled in these programs.” In addition, the following references did not appear to be relevant: Opening Brief of CFC on the Commission’s Examination of PUCode Section 745 Issues, pp. 1-2 (notably, CFC cites “Nexant findings” yet, at the time this brief was filed, Nexant had not made any findings); 10-11.
231086632.docx