Finally, according to Clean Coalition, the grants it received for policy “general nationwide can fund its participation before the CPUC. Based on these facts, Clean Coalition has work” been able to participate in our proceedings without a prospect of the intervenor compensation. Clean Coalition's reliance on the presumption of eligibility is misplaced (see, the “CPUC above, secs. 5, 6, 9 11). Section 1804(b)(1) provides that finding of Verified” column, – “a significant financial hardship shall create a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for compensation in other proceedings commencing within one year of the date of that … only has Clean Coalition exhausted a presumption of eligibility stemming from finding.” Not the Ruling of July 19, 2011, but new facts of Clean economic interests in the Coalition’s proceedings, as set out above, impair Clean eligibility and therefore Commission’s Coalition’s create a rebuttal to any pre-existing presumption of significant financial hardship. Information about these facts provided in A.15-02-009 illustrates Clean regular services on Coalition’s behalf of the private interests of the renewable energy market and industry. Based on the analysis of this information, the ruling of June 30, 2016 determined that Clean Coalition has become ineligible for intervenor compensation. D.16-12-065 denied Clean Motion Coalition’s to Reconsider. When participating in this proceeding, Clean Coalition was aware of the fact that Clean eligibility was under scrutiny in A.15-02-009 and of the June 30, 2016 Coalition’s Ruling denying eligibility. Thus, the record demonstrates that Clean reliance on Coalition’s previous findings of eligibility is misplaced. III. Conclusion The following facts are not in dispute: Clean Coalition contracts with renewable energy entities on a regular basis, and receives remuneration for these projects; Many parties to this proceeding, including Respondents, are Clean actual or Coalition’s potential clients; The issues in this proceeding directly relate to Clean consulting work and the Coalition’s interests of its corporate partners; and If successful, Clean advocacy may expand Clean contractual Coalition’s Coalition’s opportunities in the DER/WDG.
Finally, according to Clean Coalition, the grants it received for “general nationwide policy work” can fund its participation before the CPUC. Based on these facts, Clean Coalition has been able to participate in our proceedings without a prospect of the intervenor compensation. Clean Coalition's reliance on the presumption of eligibility is misplaced (see, the “CPUC Verified” column, above, secs. 5, 6, 9 – 11). Section 1804(b)(1) provides that “a finding of significant financial hardship shall create a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for compensation in other … proceedings commencing within one year of the date of that finding.” Not only has Clean Coalition exhausted a presumption of eligibility stemming from the Ruling of July 19, 2011, but new facts of Clean Coalition’s economic interests in the Commission’s proceedings, as set out above, impair Clean Coalition’s eligibility and therefore create a rebuttal to any pre-existing presumption of significant financial hardship. Information about these facts provided in A.15-02-009 illustrates Clean Coalition’s regular services on behalf of the private interests of the renewable energy market and industry. Based on the analysis of this information, the ruling of June 30, 2016 determined that Clean Coalition has become ineligible for intervenor compensation. D.16-12-065 denied Clean Coalition’s Motion to Reconsider. When participating in this proceeding, Clean Coalition was aware of the fact that Clean Coalition’s eligibility was under scrutiny in A.15-02-009 and of the June 30, 2016 Ruling denying eligibility. Thus, the record demonstrates that Clean Coalition’s reliance on previous findings of eligibility is misplaced. III. Conclusion The following facts are not in dispute: Clean Coalition contracts with renewable energy entities on a regular basis, and receives remuneration for these projects; Many parties to this proceeding, including Respondents, are Clean Coalition’s actual or potential clients; The issues in this proceeding directly relate to Clean Coalition’s consulting work and the interests of its corporate partners; and If successful, Clean Coalition’s advocacy may expand Clean Coalition’s contractual opportunities in the DER/WDG.
230593646.docx