provision that, as proposed, contravenes the public interest, interest, “ideally doing so with any adjustments necessary to preserve the fundamental bargain that the parties sought.”[citing CAUSE Opening Comments at 5] Discussion Rafferty’s citations to D.17-05-013 are incomplete and omit the portions of the decision that state that Rafferty’s comments on the PD are not convincing. First, at the beginning of the section discussing parties’ comments regarding the Commission’s standard for review of settlements the Commission states “as explained below, the comments and reply comments on the Commission’s standard for review of settlements offer no compelling reasons to change [the PD or] the APD.” Second, in a later discussion of CAUSE’s specific comments, the Commission states “we have explained above why we disagree with CAUSE’s first point” and “we find CAUSE’s suggestion in this regard [supporting modification of single provisions of a settlement, as the PD and the APD have done, but in a manner that preserves the ‘fundamental bargain’ of the settlement] impractical and inconsistent with our Rules.” We find that the Commission did not adopt Rafferty’s recommendations regarding the Commission’s standard for evaluating settlements in D.17-05-013, either in whole or in part. In the absence of a substantial contribution, Rafferty’s claim for intervenor compensation on this matter must be denied. Catalyst for Acceptance of Modifications The PD and APD, as well as D.17-05-013, included an order that Settling Parties shall have 15 days from the date of the final decision to file and serve a “Notice To Accept PG&E’s Adopted Test Year 2017 Revenue Requirement,” or to file a “Motion Requesting Other Relief.” In comments filed on the APD, Settling Parties suggested that the Commission adopt several “alternative provisions”
provision that, as proposed, contravenes the public interest, interest, “ideally doing so with any adjustments necessary to preserve the fundamental bargain that the parties sought.”[citing CAUSE Opening Comments at 5] Discussion Rafferty’s citations to D.17-05-013 are incomplete and omit the portions of the decision that state that Rafferty’s comments on the PD are not convincing. First, at the beginning of the section discussing parties’ comments regarding the Commission’s standard for review of settlements the Commission states “as explained below, the comments and reply comments on the Commission’s standard for review of settlements offer no compelling reasons to change [the PD or] the APD.” Second, in a later discussion of CAUSE’s specific comments, the Commission states “we have explained above why we disagree with CAUSE’s first point” and “we find CAUSE’s suggestion in this regard [supporting modification of single provisions of a settlement, as the PD and the APD have done, but in a manner that preserves the ‘fundamental bargain’ of the settlement] impractical and inconsistent with our Rules.” We find that the Commission did not adopt Rafferty’s recommendations regarding the Commission’s standard for evaluating settlements in D.17-05-013, either in whole or in part. In the absence of a substantial contribution, Rafferty’s claim for intervenor compensation on this matter must be denied. Catalyst for Acceptance of Modifications The PD and APD, as well as D.17-05-013, included an order that Settling Parties shall have 15 days from the date of the final decision to file and serve a “Notice To Accept PG&E’s Adopted Test Year 2017 Revenue Requirement,” or to file a “Motion Requesting Other Relief.” In comments filed on the APD, Settling Parties suggested that the Commission adopt several “alternative provisions”
250233372.docx