Commission recognized that it benefit from an “may participation even where the Commission did intervenor’s not adopt any of the positions or intervenor’s p. 5-6 (in the review of recommendations.” D.08-04-004, with Long Beach Generation, SCE’s contract The Commission reached a similar conclusion in D.09-04-027, awarding intervenor compensation for efforts in the SCE AMI proceeding TURN’s even on issues where TURN did not prevail, as efforts to the inclusion of these TURN’s “contributed issues in the and caused the Commission’s deliberation” Commission to more discussion on the issue, in part “add to address D.09-04-027, p. 4. See, TURN’s comments.” also, D.10-06-046, p. 5. In this phase of OIR 13-09-011, the Commission adopted an outcome on the primary issue of generation capacity valuation that was closer to position than to the TURN’s position of the other parties in this proceeding. The Commission also adopted a consensus DRAM process, and adopted several of specific recommendations TURN’s concerning program design and budgets for 2017. TURN suggests that the scope of TURN substantial contributions warrants compensation for all of time and TURN’s expenses in this proceeding. However, if the Commission determines that some disallowance is needed, TURN has attempted to itemize our work consistent with the primary issues we addressed. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§§ 1801 & 1806): a. Concise explanation as to how the cost of participation bears a Claimant’s CPUC Verified reasonable relationship with benefits realized through participation (include references to record, where appropriate) Verified In this phase of the rulemaking proceeding, TURN primarily addressed policy and market design issues concerning: 1) the valuation of load modifying demand response; and 2) procurement using the demand response auction mechanism. TURN also addressed certain program design issues related to 2017 demand response programs. It is impossible to quantify the direct financial benefits of participation. TURN’s However, TURN advanced positions that will result in 1) more appropriate valuation of load modifying demand response products; and 2) more competitive procurement of supply-side demand response products through the demand response auction mechanism. Thus, advocacy and contributions to the TURN’s Commission decisions should result in the procurement of both more effective and lower cost demand response products and services.
Commission recognized that it “may benefit from an intervenor’s participation even where the Commission did not adopt any of the intervenor’s positions or recommendations.” D.08-04-004, p. 5-6 (in the review of SCE’s contract with Long Beach Generation, The Commission reached a similar conclusion in D.09-04-027, awarding intervenor compensation for TURN’s efforts in the SCE AMI proceeding even on issues where TURN did not prevail, as TURN’s efforts “contributed to the inclusion of these issues in the Commission’s deliberation” and caused the Commission to “add more discussion on the issue, in part to address TURN’s comments.” D.09-04-027, p. 4. See, also, D.10-06-046, p. 5. In this phase of OIR 13-09-011, the Commission adopted an outcome on the primary issue of generation capacity valuation that was closer to TURN’s position than to the position of the other parties in this proceeding. The Commission also adopted a consensus DRAM process, and adopted several of TURN’s specific recommendations concerning program design and budgets for 2017. TURN suggests that the scope of TURN substantial contributions warrants compensation for all of TURN’s time and expenses in this proceeding. However, if the Commission determines that some disallowance is needed, TURN has attempted to itemize our work consistent with the primary issues we addressed. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§§ 1801 & 1806): a. Concise explanation as to how the cost of Claimant’s participation bears a reasonable relationship with benefits realized through participation (include references to record, where appropriate) In this phase of the rulemaking proceeding, TURN primarily addressed policy and market design issues concerning: 1) the valuation of load modifying demand response; and 2) procurement using the demand response auction mechanism. TURN also addressed certain program design issues related to 2017 demand response programs. It is impossible to quantify the direct financial benefits of TURN’s participation. However, TURN advanced positions that will result in 1) more appropriate valuation of load modifying demand response products; and 2) more competitive procurement of supply-side demand response products through the demand response auction mechanism. Thus, TURN’s advocacy and contributions to the Commission decisions should result in the procurement of both more effective and lower cost demand response products and services. CPUC Verified Verified
210639314.docx