5. Clean Co. also Verified The Decision agreed, citing responses by highlighted the parties (Decision, p. 13): representations that PG&E had made with respect to canceling its the responses have correctly pointed “As PV program and out, the request to close the PG&E’s moving that capacity to Solar Photovoltaic Program was tied to the RAM program PG&E transferring the remaining instead, weighing procurement obligations to RAM. heavily in favor of PG&E made assurances that such an preserving the outcome would result in procurement remaining capacity in that better matches PG&E’s RAM that had been demonstrated RPS need, which is later transferred from the PV in the decade and beyond. We hold program (Clean Co. PG&E to these representations and, as a result, no reason to defer the response to PFM, p. 3) see procurement of RPS-eligible solar resources through RAM.” Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): CPUC Intervenor’s Assertion Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to Yes Yes the proceeding? b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions Yes Yes similar to yours? c. If so, provide name of other parties: Verified to the extent to which Sierra Club, SEIA and ORA. these statements refer to Sierra and Club’s SEIA’s positions. As D.17-08-025 noted, the ORA supported PFM. PG&E’s
5. Clean Co. also highlighted the representations that PG&E had made with respect to canceling its PV program and moving that capacity to the RAM program instead, weighing heavily in favor of preserving the remaining capacity in RAM that had been transferred from the PV program (Clean Co. response to PFM, p. 3) The Decision agreed, citing responses by parties (Decision, p. 13): “As the responses have correctly pointed out, the PG&E’s request to close the Solar Photovoltaic Program was tied to PG&E transferring the remaining procurement obligations to RAM. PG&E made assurances that such an outcome would result in procurement that better matches PG&E’s demonstrated RPS need, which is later in the decade and beyond. We hold PG&E to these representations and, as a result, see no reason to defer the procurement of RPS-eligible solar resources through RAM.” Verified 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 Yes b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Yes c. If so, provide name of other parties: Sierra Club, SEIA and ORA. Verified to the extent to which these statements refer to Sierra Club’s and SEIA’s positions. As D.17-08-025 noted, the ORA supported PG&E’s PFM.
211971790.docx