Condition B of the Mariposa Settlement Verified Agreement The (“Settlement”). Commission had previously found that PG&E filed three applications to meet its resource need under the 2008 Long-Term Request for it had Offers (“LTRFO”) when agreed to file only one pursuant to the p. 1. Settlement.” D.17-10-024, Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): CPUC Intervenor’s Assertion Discussion Yes (it was DRA Yes a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding? at the time.) Yes. Yes b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? CBE was closely aligned with Noted c. If so, provide name of other parties: CARE in this proceeding. CBE also communicated with DRA. CBE coordinated with CARE Noted d. claim of non-duplication: Intervenor’s regarding remedy theories, and provided a legal analysis. work was CBE’s not duplicative of or any other party. CARE’s Additional Comments on Part II: # Comment CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s As a result of CBE advocacy around need for a Noted remedy regarding breach, the Commission engaged in a penalty phase, ordering PG&E to pay $25,000. D.17-10-024 finally concluded this phase of the proceeding. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. claim of cost reasonableness: Intervenor’s CPUC Discussion CBE intervened in Phase II of the proceeding for the narrow purposes of Verified ensuring that PG&E face penalties if it violates its settlement agreements, and that the Commission not allow PG&E to overprocure gas-fired generation outside the long procurement process. CBE was successful in achieving these purposes. The compensation request is extremely
Condition B of the Mariposa Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”). The Commission had previously found that PG&E filed three applications to meet its resource need under the 2008 Long-Term Request for Offers (“LTRFO”) when it had agreed to file only one pursuant to the Settlement.” D.17-10-024, p. 1. 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 (it was DRA at the time.) Yes b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes. Yes c. If so, provide name of other parties: CBE was closely aligned with CARE in this proceeding. CBE also communicated with DRA. Noted d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: CBE coordinated with CARE regarding remedy theories, and provided a legal analysis. CBE’s work was not duplicative of CARE’s or any other party. Noted Additional Comments on Part II: # Intervenor’s Comment CPUC Discussion As a result of CBE advocacy around need for a remedy regarding breach, the Commission engaged in a penalty phase, ordering PG&E to pay $25,000. D.17-10-024 finally concluded this phase of the proceeding. Noted PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: CBE intervened in Phase II of the proceeding for the narrow purposes of ensuring that PG&E face penalties if it violates its settlement agreements, and that the Commission not allow PG&E to overprocure gas-fired generation outside the long procurement process. CBE was successful in achieving these purposes. The compensation request is extremely CPUC Discussion Verified
212072658.docx