attorney offering a securities differentiate the See also SELC Comments on opinion be licensed and in adopted insurance Proposed Decision, June 26, 2017, at 5 good standing (reflected in Part coverage requirement (supporting modification Parts (i) and (ii)). SELC offered other based on project size (ii) and proposing amendments to Part alternatives, such as exempting for the first time, and (iii)). nonprofit organizations and consequently small projects from the intervenor’s securities opinion requirement suggestions were that were discussed by the rejected by the Commission but not Decision on incorporated in the Final procedural grounds Decision. (D.17-07-007). Therefore, while some of the analysis Decision D. 17-07-007 adopted provided by both Parts (i) and (ii) of the intervenor did proposed modifications (in D. 17-07-007, at 7-8 (changing the contribute to the addition to Part (iii), which standard from a list of 100 firms to Commission’s SELC did not support). The being based on attorney expertise). decision-making Commission agreed with the See also, id. at 5-7 (discussing and process, some Petitioners and with SELC that deciding against entirely eliminating the analysis provided was the securities opinion standard securities opinion requirement); id. at 11 out of scope or should be focused on “the (discussing and deciding against otherwise expertise of the lawyer exempting the requirement for certain procedurally responsible for the issuance of low-risk projects). improper and the opinion rather than the law therefore did not firm’s national ranking.” contribute to the Commission’s decision-making SELC argued for alternatives process. regarding malpractice insurance requirements, which SELC Response to Petition for the Commission ultimately did Modification, April 26, 2017, at 3-4 not adopt, but which however (arguing for the elimination of the became part of the insurance requirement). Commissions more robust analysis of the issues. A liability insurance requirement See also SELC Comments on was not part of the securities Proposed Decision, June 26, 2017, at opinion standard in D. 2-5 (arguing, at least, for the reduction and given that it was part of the insurance requirement for of the proposed Petition’s projects under 1MW in size and modifications, SELC’s offering reports and data into the record contribution was vital in of project development costs for leading to the Commissions projects). discussion of the merits and
attorney offering a securities opinion be licensed and in good standing (reflected in Part (ii)). SELC offered other alternatives, such as exempting nonprofit organizations and small projects from the securities opinion requirement that were discussed by the Commission but not incorporated in the Final Decision. Decision D. 17-07-007 adopted both Parts (i) and (ii) of the proposed modifications (in addition to Part (iii), which SELC did not support). The Commission agreed with the Petitioners and with SELC that the securities opinion standard should be focused on “the expertise of the lawyer responsible for the issuance of the opinion rather than the law firm’s national ranking.” SELC argued for alternatives regarding malpractice insurance requirements, which the Commission ultimately did not adopt, but which however became part of the Commissions more robust analysis of the issues. A liability insurance requirement was not part of the securities opinion standard in D. and given that it was part of the Petition’s proposed modifications, SELC’s contribution was vital in leading to the Commissions discussion of the merits and See also SELC Comments on Proposed Decision, June 26, 2017, at 5 (supporting modification Parts (i) and (ii) and proposing amendments to Part (iii)). D. 17-07-007, at 7-8 (changing the standard from a list of 100 firms to being based on attorney expertise). See also, id. at 5-7 (discussing and deciding against entirely eliminating the securities opinion requirement); id. at 11 (discussing and deciding against exempting the requirement for certain low-risk projects). SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 3-4 (arguing for the elimination of the insurance requirement). See also SELC Comments on Proposed Decision, June 26, 2017, at 2-5 (arguing, at least, for the reduction of the insurance requirement for projects under 1MW in size and offering reports and data into the record of project development costs for projects). differentiate the adopted insurance coverage requirement based on project size for the first time, and consequently intervenor’s suggestions were rejected by the Decision on procedural grounds (D.17-07-007). Therefore, while some of the analysis provided by intervenor did contribute to the Commission’s decision-making process, some analysis provided was out of scope or otherwise procedurally improper and therefore did not contribute to the Commission’s decision-making process.
212535112.docx