perspective, that the result at pp.1 to 4. Decision of ALJ Allen, was on the “[b]ased Decision 18-01-022 denied funding specific facts in presented” for the program, but did so subject this proceeding (at pp.33 to reservations preserving the and 54, footnote 26), which ability to consider a Commission’s responded to legal community impacts program under arguments submitted by express legislative authorizations A4NR and others and/or in light of new facts and regarding the breadth of circumstances that might be the Commission’s developed as part of the ratemaking authority by study of community Commission’s limiting the precedential impacts being conducted pursuant effects of the to Public Utilities Code Section order for Commission’s 712.5, at pp.32 footnote 17, 33, 41, future proposals (e.g., and 54 footnote 26. presumably those that may be developed from the studies being conducted under the aegis of Public Utilities Code Section 712.5, the interpretation of which remains a matter of first impression under the decision as Commission’s written (noted at p.32 footnote 17)). Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): CPUC Intervenor’s Assertion Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a Yes Verified party to the proceeding? b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with Yes Verified positions similar to yours? c. If so, provide name of other parties: The Joint Parties (PG&E, Concur Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, and the Coalition of California Utility Employees), the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace The Utility and the (“SLOMFP”), Reform Network (“TURN”), Office of Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”). d. claim of non-duplication: Noted; However, Intervenor’s only parts of i. Positions in Support of the Joint Proposal: A4NR’s the Joint
perspective, that the result was “[b]ased on the specific facts presented” in this proceeding (at pp.33 and 54, footnote 26), which responded to legal arguments submitted by A4NR and others regarding the breadth of the Commission’s ratemaking authority by limiting the precedential effects of the Commission’s order for future proposals (e.g., presumably those that may be developed from the studies being conducted under the aegis of Public Utilities Code Section 712.5, the interpretation of which remains a matter of first impression under the Commission’s decision as written (noted at p.32 footnote 17)). Decision of ALJ Allen, at pp.1 to 4. Decision 18-01-022 denied funding for the program, but did so subject to reservations preserving the Commission’s ability to consider a community impacts program under express legislative authorizations and/or in light of new facts and circumstances that might be developed as part of the Commission’s study of community impacts being conducted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 712.5, at pp.32 footnote 17, 33, 41, and 54 footnote 26. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s Assertion CPUC Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding? Yes Verified b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Verified c. If so, provide name of other parties: The Joint Parties (PG&E, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, and the Coalition of California Utility Employees), the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (“SLOMFP”), The Utility Reform Network (“TURN”), and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”). Concur d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: i. A4NR’s Positions in Support of the Joint Proposal: Noted; However, only parts of the Joint
236850988.docx