apply to this proceeding, which started more than 3 years after that ruling. 11. Based on another CPUC determination D.16-11-017 issued in See also (specify): D.16-11-017 It did not make a finding of significant financial hardship pursuant to Section 1802(h) but relied on the July 19, 2011 ruling, via rebuttable presumption, pursuant to Section 1804(b). That presumption has expired and is no longer valid. See CPUC Discussion in Part I(C). Clean Coalition has demonstrated 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? significant financial hardship under the specific circumstances of this proceeding. See CPUC Discussion in Part I(C). Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or 12/22/2016, 09/22/2015, 12/22/2016 Decision: 9/22/2015 2/16/2017 15. File date of compensation request: 2/16/2017 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes Additional Comments on Part I: # CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s Comment(s) The Clean Coalition Clean Coalition (CC) filed two NOIs in this proceeding on – B. sought a new finding December 26, 2014 and January 2, 2015. A ruling of March 3, of significant 2015 requested additional information to customer support CC’s financial hardship in status and significant financial Amended NOI of hardship. CC’s this proceeding April 2, 2015 (April 2, 2015 NOI) responded to the ruling by through our NOI filed providing factual information on activities and funding. CC’s on December 26, No ruling on the amended NOI issued. In another proceeding, 2014, and our R.14-07-002, on March 9, 2015, CC provided similar Amended NOI filed information as on April 2, 2015 in this docket. In that on April 2, 2015. proceeding, D.16-05-049 (issued on May 26, 2016) found that However, the CC has demonstrated significant financial hardship. Commission did not issue a ruling on our
apply to this proceeding, which started more than 3 years after that ruling. 11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): See also D.16-11-017 D.16-11-017 issued in It did not make a finding of significant financial hardship pursuant to Section 1802(h) but relied on the July 19, 2011 ruling, via rebuttable presumption, pursuant to Section 1804(b). That presumption has expired and is no longer valid. See CPUC Discussion in Part I(C). 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Clean Coalition has demonstrated significant financial hardship under the specific circumstances of this proceeding. See CPUC Discussion in Part I(C). Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 12/22/2016, 9/22/2015 09/22/2015, 12/22/2016 15. File date of compensation request: 2/16/2017 2/16/2017 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes Additional Comments on Part I: # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion The Clean Coalition sought a new finding of significant financial hardship in this proceeding through our NOI filed on December 26, 2014, and our Amended NOI filed on April 2, 2015. However, the Commission did not issue a ruling on our Clean Coalition (CC) filed two NOIs in this proceeding – on December 26, 2014 and January 2, 2015. A ruling of March 3, 2015 requested additional information to support CC’s customer status and significant financial hardship. CC’s Amended NOI of April 2, 2015 (April 2, 2015 NOI) responded to the ruling by providing factual information on CC’s activities and funding. No ruling on the amended NOI issued. In another proceeding, R.14-07-002, on March 9, 2015, CC provided similar information as on April 2, 2015 in this docket. In that proceeding, D.16-05-049 (issued on May 26, 2016) found that CC has demonstrated significant financial hardship. B.
216634082.docx