Icomp Claim Form - California



Decision 18-11-043November 29, 2018BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902E) for Approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals.Application 17-01-020(Filed January 20, 2017)And Related Matters.Application 17-01-021Application 17-01-022DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 18-01-024 & 18-05-040Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network For contribution to Decisions (D.) 18-01-024 & D.18-05-040Claimed: $423,063.57Awarded: $423,063.57Assigned Commissioner: Carla PetermanAssigned ALJ: Michelle Cooke & Sasha GoldbergPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: In D.18-01-024, the Commission approved, with modifications, 15 of the transportation electrification (TE) priority review projects (PRPs) proposed by PG&E, SDG&E and SCE, and approved budgets totaling approximately $41 million. Two proposed priority review projects were rejected. The priority review projects are limited scale programs of a short duration designed to pilot new ideas and TE technologies. The Decision further set aside $1,644,511 for evaluation of the projects upon their completion. Decision 18-01-024 found that the priority review projects it approved were consistent with the widespread transportation electrification goals of Senate Bill 350.In D.18-05-040, the Commission approved and modified, TE standard review projects (SRPs) proposed by PG&E, SDG&E and SCE, with budgets totaling approximately $738 million. The Decision also set aside an additional $29.5 million for evaluation of the projects. The Decision substantially modified SDG&E’s proposed Residential Charging Program to adopt a rebate program for up to 60,000 residential charging stations with a cost of approximately $142 million. The Decision reduced the size and budget of SCE and PG&E’s proposed medium/heavy duty (MD-HD) infrastructure programs and approved a budget of approximately $343 million for SCE and approximately $236 million for PG&E. The Decision modified and approved PG&E’s Fast Charge program to install make-ready infrastructure to support direct current fast chargers (DCFCs) with a budget of approximately $22 million.Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:IntervenorCPUC VerificationTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference:March 16, 2017Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI:N/A 3. Date NOI filed:April 17, 2017Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed?YesShowing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b) or eligible local government entity status(§§ 1802(d), 1802.4): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:See Comment #1A.16-08-006 6. Date of ALJ ruling:See Comment #1November 28, 2016 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):See Comment #1 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status?YesShowing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: A.16-08-006Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling: November 28, 2016Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): N/A12 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.18-05-040Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: June 6, 2018Verified15. File date of compensation request:August 3, 2018Amended on November 6, 2018 Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesAdditional Comments on Part I:#Intervenor’s Comment(s)CPUC DiscussionTURN did not receive an affirmative ruling on its Notice of Intent in thisproceeding. As explained in theCommission’s Intervenor Compensation guide, “normally, an ALJ Ruling need not be issued unless: (a) the NOI has requested a finding of “significant financial hardship” under § 1802(g); (b) the NOI is deficient; or (c) the ALJ desires to provide guidance on specific issues of the NOI.” (page 12) Since noneof these factors apply to the NOI submitted in this proceeding, there was no need for an ALJ ruling in response to TURN’s NOI.NotedPART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION:Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059):Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC DiscussionTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to PG&E’s Priority Review Project (PRP) Proposals PG&E proposed five different PRPs. TURN focused its testimony on two of the PRPs, the Open Request for Proposals (Open RFP) and the Home EV Charger Information Resource Project (Home EV Project). TURN recommended that the Commission reject the Open RFP because it is duplicative of the EPIC program and the $10 million cost does not comply with the requirements in the Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling. The Commission agreed and rejected the Open RFP project. TURN also proposed significant modifications to the Home EV Project because similar resources already exist from government and non-profit entities. The Commission agreed and reduced the scale and budget of the project. Additionally, in response to TURN’s comments on the PD, the revised Decision required PG&E to file an advice letter detailing its plans to leverage existing state and non-profit resources.TURN Priority Review Projects (PRPs) Opening Brief, p. 4. TURN Priority Review Projects (PRPs) Opening Brief, p. 4. D.18-01-024, pp. 82-85.TURN Priority Review Projects (PRPs) Opening Brief, p. 5. D.18-01-024, p. 79-80.TURN Comments on PRP PD, pp. 10-11.D.18-01-024, p. 80.NotedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to SDG&E’s Priority Review Project (PRP) Proposals TURN focused most of its advocacy regarding SDG&E’s PRP projects on the proposed Dealership Training Incentives Project, the Electrify Local Highways Project and the Green Taxi/Shuttle/Rideshare Project. The Commission agreed with TURN’s concerns that giving financial incentives to rideshare and taxi drivers may not further TE or be a prudent use of ratepayer funds so the Commission modified the program to focus solely on shuttles. Also noting TURN’s concerns, the Commission rejected the proposed $10,000 per vehicle incentives. Regarding the Dealership Incentive Program, TURN questioned the value of paying financial incentives to car salesmen for selling EVs, the Decision modified the program to only pay incentives if a driver enrolls on an EV TOU rate. - TURN PRP Opening Brief, p. 7-9.- D.18-01-024, p. 35.- TURN PRP Opening Brief, p. 9. - D.18-01-024, p. 33: “TURN contends it is “inappropriate to have all SDG&E ratepayers, including low-income residential customers, pay for a $10,000 incentive for electric shuttles and taxis in addition to the many other subsidies SDG&E proposes.” We agree with this contention, and reject SDG&E’s proposal to offer $10,000 per electric shuttle …”- TURN PRP Opening Brief, p. 7.- D.18-01-024, p. 39. “After reviewing TURN’s concerns and to better align this project with the utility’s core competencies, we modify SDG&E’s Dealership Incentives to allow the $250 incentives to be paid to the dealership and salesperson only if the EV buyer/lessee enrolls in an EV rate.”VerifiedVerifiedVerifiedTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to SCE’s Priority Review Project (PRP) ProposalsTURN provided extensive feedback on three of SCE’s six proposed PRPs. First, TURN challenged the EV Rideshare Reward program because it did not leverage private funds and did not demonstrate how it would accelerate TE. The Commission agreed and denied the project. TURN recommended changes to SCE’s data collection plan for its Urban DCFC Clusters Pilot which the Decision adopted. TURN also provided recommendations for the Residential Make-Ready Rebate Program, including implementing income eligibility requirements, limiting the program to recent EV purchases and leases, reserving rebate funds for DAC customers, and requiring SCE to conduct surveys to determine the impact of the program on EV adoption. The Commission saw value in TURN’s recommendations and adopted most of them. TURN also proposed that the rebates be treated as expenses, not regulatory assets for the purpose of cost recovery which the Decision adopted. - TURN PRP Opening Brief, June 16, 2017, pp. 29.- D.18-01-024, p. 53-54.- TURN PRP Opening Brief, p. 35. - D.18-01-024, p. 56.-TURN PRP Opening Brief, p.10.- D.18-01-024, p. 49. “TURN’s proposed modifications align with the overarching goals of SB 350. However, we have concerns that implementing income eligibility requirements would be administratively burdensome for a small, short-term project. Therefore, we adopt TURN’s modifications to (1) limit program eligibility to customers who purchased or leased an EV within 6 months of applying for this rebate; (2) reserve 50% of the rebate funds for customers living in a DAC, and; (3) measure the impact on EV adoption by conducting surveys or other evaluation methods.”- TURN PRP Opening Brief, pp. 18-22.- D.18-01-024, p. 50. VerifiedVerifiedVerifiedTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to PG&E’s Standard Review Proposal for DC Fast Charging The Commission essentially adopted PG&E’s proposed program size and cost despite TURN’s testimony that such a large program was unnecessary at this point. However, the Commission did adopt some of TURN’s proposed modifications to the program that will result in a better program design. TURN proposed that all make-ready infrastructure installed through the Fast Charge program be able to support 120 kW or higher powered EVSE, the CPUC agreed and ordered PG&E to install make-ready infrastructure to support 150 kW or higher. The Decision did see value in TURN’s Performance Accountability Metric but ultimately did not adopt it. However, it did adopt TURN’s recommendation to collect data on users of the charging stations, specifically focused on if stations serve MUD users with no other charging options. Lastly, TURN proposed that PG&E be required to develop a new rate for fast charging which PG&E agreed to do within 6-12 months of Decision.D.18-05-040, p. 72.TURN DCFC Testimony, July 25, pp. 4-5. D.18-05-040, pp. 74-75. “TURN suggests PG&E should ensure all make-ready infrastructure installed through the Fast Charge program can support 120 kW or higher powered EVSE, …We support ChargePoint and TURN’s recommendation to install infrastructure capable of higher power levels, …”- D.18-05-040, p. 76. “We do not adopt TURN’s proposed Performance Accountability Metric that focuses on site utilization statistics to drive site selection as this approach would likely make it harder to site DCFC make-ready investments in DACs.”- D.18-05-040, p. 76.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 26- D.18-05-040, p. 64VerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to PG&E’s Standard Review Proposal for Medium and Heavy Duty (MD-HD) Vehicle Charging InfrastructureProgram Size & CostTURN proposed substantial reductions to PG&E’s proposed over $200 million budget but did find that PG&E’s per site costs were more reasonable than SCE’s. While the Decision did not adopt the majority TURN’s proposed cost reductions, it did adopt many of TURN’s other recommendations. The Commission agreed with TURN that a 35% contingency cost was excessive and instead assumed a 10% contingency cost. TURN also proposed an additional cost saving measure that site hosts should be able to use their existing service connection if it is their preference and has the capacity, the commission agreed. - Cost RecoveryConsistent with TURN’s recommendation, the Commission also rejected PG&E’s proposal to allow it request recovery of additional costs if program demand outstrips the adopted budget.RebatesTURN supported PG&E’s proposal to target rebates to DAC sites & for transit and school buses. The Commission agreed and limited the rebates for charging stations to DAC sites and school and transit bus locations. Program Design Features to Protect RatepayersThe Decision agreed with TURN that each site host that participates in the program should commit to purchasing at least two electric vehicles, but sites which commit to more electric vehicle adoption (in both the near and medium-term) should be prioritized over those that commit to less.The Commission also adopted TURN’s proposal to require site hosts to maintain and operate the charging equipment for at least 10 years. Disadvantaged Communities Issues (DACs)PG&E proposed a target of 15% of site installations in DACs. TURN proposed a minimum requirement for DAC site installations of 40% and while the Commission found merit in TURN’s proposal, it adopted a 25% DAC requirement for PG&E acknowledging differences between its service territory and SCE’s. Further, the Commission adopted TURN’s proposal to require PG&E to reserve funds for DACs for the majority of the program term.The Commission also acknowledged TURN’s concern that sometimes large & wealthy corporations are located in DACs and thus the Decision exempts Fortune 1000 companies located in DACs from receiving 100% charging station rebates and directs PG&E and SCE to work with their program advisory councils to develop additional requirements for participants located in DACs to be eligible for a partial EVSE rebate.D.18-05-040, p. 91.TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, p. 15.D.18-05-040, p. 103.D.18-05-040, p. 109. “We agree with Tesla and TURN that if using a customer’s existing service connection is the lowest-cost option for a specific site, and the customer would prefer to use its existing service connection, that is the option PG&E and SCE should support.”- TURN Opening Brief, p. 75.D.18-05-040, pp. 124-125.- TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, p. 43.- D.18-05-040, p. 103.TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, p. 8.- TURN Opening Brief, November 21, 2017, p. 28. - D.18-05-040, pp. 107-108. “We agree with TURN that ratepayers should not fund charging infrastructure that supports the adoption of only one electric vehicle, …”- D.18-05-040, p. 110 & p. 161 OP 42.- TURN Opening Brief, November 21, 2017, p. 28. - D.18-05-040, pp. 94-95.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 45. - D.18-05-040, p. 96 & p. 161 OP 41.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 56. - D.18-05-040, p. 95.VerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to SCE’s Standard Review Proposal for Medium and Heavy Duty (MD-HD) Vehicle Charging InfrastructureProgram Size & CostTURN proposed substantial reductions to SCE’s proposed $554 million budget, many of which adopted by the Commission. First, TURN identified that SCE’s per site costs were substantially higher than PG&E’s for a similar scope of work. The Commission found TURN’s analysis compelling and applied PG&E’s cost estimates to SCE’s program. The Commission also agreed with TURN that a 35% contingency cost was excessive and instead assumed a 10% contingency cost. The Commission approved a total budget of approximately $343 million for SCE’s program.TURN also proposed an additional cost saving measure that site hosts should be able to use their existing service connection if it is their preference and it has the capacity, the commission agreed.- Cost RecoveryConsistent with TURN’s recommendation, the Commission also rejected SCE’s proposal to allow it request recovery of additional costs if program demand outstrips the adopted budget.Charging Station Rebates TURN opposed SCE’s proposal to provide rebates to cover 100% of charging station base costs because it was an unnecessary use of ratepayer funds and rebated targeted to DAC sites & for transit and school buses were a targeted way to reduce GHG emissions. The Commission agreed and limited the rebates for charging stations to DAC sites and school and transit bus locations. SCE proposed to capitalize rebate costs which TURN opposed. The Commission agreed and required SCE to treat rebates as an expense.Program Design Features to Protect RatepayersThe Decision agreed with TURN that each site host that participates in the program should commit to purchasing at least two electric vehicles, but sites which commit to more electric vehicle adoption (in both the near and medium-term) should be prioritized over those that commit to less.The Commission rejected SCE’s proposal to only require site hosts to operate and maintain the charging equipment for 5 years and instead adopted TURN’s proposal to require site hosts to maintain and operate the charging equipment for at least 10 years. Disadvantaged Communities Issues (DACs)TURN proposed a minimum requirement for DAC site installations of 40% which the Commission adopted. Further, the Commission adopted TURN’s proposal to require SCE to reserve DACs for the majority of the program term.The Commission also acknowledged TURN’s concern that sometimes large & wealthy corporations are located in DACs and thus the Decision exempts Fortune 1000 companies located in DACs from receiving 100% charging station rebates and directs PG&E and SCE to work with their program advisory councils to develop additional requirements for participants located in DACs to be eligible for a partial EVSE rebate.TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, Appendix 2.D.18-05-040, p. 91. “… we do agree with TURN that there is a major disparity in the cost estimates for different types of installations by PG&E and SCE.”TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, p. 15.D.18-05-040, p. 103. “We conclude, consistent with ORA and TURN’s recommendations, that a 35 percent contingency is not necessary for the make-ready installations …”.D.18-05-040, p. 104.D.18-05-040, p. 109. “We agree with Tesla and TURN that if using a customer’s existing service connection is the lowest-cost option for a specific site, and the customer would prefer to use its existing service connection, that is the option PG&E and SCE should support.”TURN MD-HD Testimony (Jones), August 1, 2017, pp. 4-5.D.18-05-040, pp. 124-125.TURN Opening Brief, November 21, 2017, p. 43. TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, p. 15.- D.18-05-040, p. 92. “First, like TURN, we prefer PG&E’s approach to selectively target rebates, because it is most likely to influence GHG emission reductions where they are needed most.” See also D.18-05-040, p. 103.- TURN Opening Brief, November 21, 2017, p. 79. - D.18-05-040, p. 110.TURN MD-HD Testimony (Borden), August 1, 2017, p. 8.- TURN Opening Brief, November 21, 2017, p. 28. - D.18-05-040, pp. 107-108. “We agree with TURN that ratepayers should not fund charging infrastructure that supports the adoption of only one electric vehicle, …”- D.18-05-040, p. 110 & p. 161 OP 42.- TURN Opening Brief, November 21, 2017, p. 36.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 56. - D.18-05-040, p. 94.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 45. - D.18-05-040, p. 96 & & p. 161 OP 41.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 56. - D.18-05-040, p. 95NotedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedTURN’s Proposed Changes/Improvements to SDG&E’s Standard Review Proposal for Residential Charging Program (RCP)RCP Size & CostSDG&E’s modified proposal was to install up to 90,000 L2 charging stations at a cost of approximately $242 Million. TURN proposed a smaller program both because the size of the program unnecessarily burdened ratepayers and because it could have anti-competitive impacts. The Commission agreed about the excessive size of SDG&E’s program & limited it to a maximum of 60,000 charging stations. TURN proposed many program design modifications, some of which the Commission adopted which reduced the overall cost of the program to $142 million, see below. Program DesignTURN advocated for changing the structure of the program to a lower cost rebate program instead of a utility install and ownership program. As a rebate program a majority of program costs are rebates which TURN advocated to be treated as expenses instead of included in rate base which the Commission adopted. This will save ratepayers $100s of millions over the life of the program and the EV charging equipment. The rebate program structure is simpler and more efficient to administer which saves ratepayers program administration costs and operation and maintenance costs in the futures. TURN also advocated for a rebate program to protect ratepayers from the significant risk of stranded costs presented by SDG&E’s utility ownership model. In order to limit free-ridership TURN also recommended that the program be limited to recent EV purchases or lessees which the Commission adopted. Rate Design SDG&E originally proposed a whole house residential grid integrated rate (GIR) with a potentially punitive demand charge and the potential for rate arbitrage. TURN’s expert Marcus filed testimony on this rate and in response to TURN and other parties’ criticisms SDG&E withdrew the whole house GIR. TURN also suggested that SDG&E modify its existing TOU rates for EV drivers which the Commission adopted. TURN also recommended that RCP participants be required to enroll in one of SDG&E’s EV TOU rates or the EV only GIR in order to participate in the program in order to provide non-participating ratepayers with managed charging benefits, the Commission agreed and adopted this requirement. Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) SDG&E originally proposed to install 20% of charging stations in DACs. TURN recommended a minimum of 25% of program funds be reserved for installations in DACs and/or in the residences of CARE/FERA eligible customers, the Commission agreed and adopted TURN’s proposal. TURN also proposed higher rebate amount for DAC customers which the Decision adopts.- Cost RecoveryTURN recommended a strict spending cap for SDG&E’s program which the Commission adopted.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 123. - D.18-05-040, p. 118.- TURN Opening Brief, pp. 85-90. - D.18-05-040, p. 29. “We agree with TURN that “allowance” or “rebate” is primarily an issue of semantics – the act of providing the credit to customers can be accomplished in the same way under either proposal.89 We believe a straightforward, upfront-rebate program for the costs of the EVSE and customer-side make-ready infrastructure will work to meet the objectives of SB 350, and SDG&E’s deployment goals.” (See also, pp. 51-53.)- TURN Opening Brief, p. 99. - D.18-05-040, p. 155, OP 15.- D.18-05-040, p. 51.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 115. - D.18-05-040, p. 33. “We agree with TURN that RCP participation should be limited to recent EV purchasers or lessees.” See also p. 155, OP 12.- TURN Residential Charging Testimony, Marcus, pp. 5-10. - D.18-05-040, p. 42.- TURN Residential Charging Testimony, Marcus, p. 21. - D.18-05-040, pp. 43-44.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 86. - D.18-05-040, p. 58-59 & p. 155, OP 18.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 111. - D.18-05-040, p. 59 & p. 155, OP 13.- TURN Opening Brief, p. 111. - D.18-05-040, p. 61.- TURN Residential Charging Testimony, Jones, pp. 1-2. - D.18-05-040, p. 125 & p. 150, OP #1.VerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedVerifiedDuplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5):Intervenor’s AssertionCPUC Discussiona.Was the Public Advocate’s Office at the California Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) a party to the proceeding?YesVerifiedb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? YesVerifiedc.If so, provide name of other parties: With regard to the PRPs, Cal Advocates, UCAN, the National Diversity Coalition and Greenlining took similar positions as TURN to at least one of the seventeen individual projects. The primary active party aligned with TURN in regards to PG&E and SCE’s MD-HD programs was Cal Advocates. Clean Energy Fuels Corporation also opposed utility ownership of behind the meter infrastructure in regards to the MD-HD SRPs. The primary active party aligned with TURN in regards to PG&E’s DCFC program was Cal Advocates. ChargePoint, UCAN and the National Diversity Coalition (represented by the National Asian American Coalition) were aligned with TURN on issues of program design and utility ownership for SDG&E’s residential charging program. Notedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: TURN's compensation in this proceeding should not be reduced for duplication of the showings of other parties. In a proceeding involving so many parties, it is virtually impossible for TURN to completely avoid some duplication of the work of other parties. With regard to the PRPs, Cal Advocates, UCAN, the National Diversity Coalition and Greenlining took similar positions as TURN to at least one of the proposed projects. However, each party proposed unique recommendations for the various projects. TURN and Greenlining worked with the Union for Concerned Scientists to develop an On-Bill Financing Proposal for Transit Buses which they jointly proposed in response to PG&E’s Open RFP project. Greenlining took the lead in developing this proposal and TURN provided feedback and some research support but the amount of time devoted to this proposal was minimal. Regarding the MD-HD SRPs and the DCFC SRP, TURN and Cal Advocates were aligned on basic issues including reducing the size and scope of the programs, utility ownership of infrastructure on the customer side of the meter and limiting ratepayer risk from stranded costs. However, TURN and Cal Advocates each took unique positions in regards to these applications and each developed individual and very different alternative proposals.Regarding the SDG&E Residential Charging SRP, TURN was aligned with Cal Advocates, UCAN, the National Diversity Coalition, and ChargePoint regarding the core issue of program design and utility ownership of charging stations. However, TURN provided a specific proposal regarding an alternative program size and cost. TURN also provided significant additional analysis concerning the risks to ratepayers and the costs and benefits of a rebate program that contributed to the Commission’s final determination concerning a proper program size and adopting a rebate program structure. TURN was part of a coalition of five parties who jointly proposed a rebate program for SDG&E’s residential charging program. TURN participated actively in this coalition and took the lead on drafting joint guiding principles the parties presented in their opening briefs and organizing meetings among the various parties. As is apparent from the multiple entries coded as “Coord” in the time sheets, TURN engaged in multiple meetings and discussions with other parties in order to minimize duplication, allocate issues, and coordinate strategies. TURN took reasonable steps to keep any duplication to a minimum, and to ensure that when it did happen, our work served to complement and assist the showings of the other parties. TURN coordinated with Cal Advocates on cross examination issues for the SRPs in order to avoid duplication. The Commission should find that TURN's participation was efficiently coordinated with the participation of Cal Advocates, UCAN and the National Diversity Coalition wherever possible, so as to avoid undue duplication and to ensure that whenever duplication occurred, it served to supplement, complement, or contribute to the showing of the other intervenor. And consistent with such a finding, the Commission should determine that all of TURN’s work is compensable consistent with the conditions set forth in Section 1802.5.NotedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION:General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:In regards to the 17 Priority Review Projects (PRPs), TURN’s participation in A.17-01-020 et al. contributed to a reduction in the authorized program costs from approximately $60 million proposed in the utilities’ PRPs to approximately $52.7 million. TURN’s program design recommendations that were adopted make the PRPs more efficient to implement and potentially scale in the future and improve the Commission’s ability to evaluate the impact of different types of utility investments on future transportation electrification (TE). In regards to the 4 Standard Review Projects (SRPs), TURN’s participation in A.17-01-020 et al. contributed to a substantial reduction in the authorized costs for the 4 programs from almost $1.03 billion proposed in the utilities’ SRPs (including SDG&E’s modifications to its SRP that increased the costs to over $240 million) to approximately $768 million, reducing the immediate impact on rates by over $260 million. TURN’s contributions to the proceeding also improve the ability of the Commission to measure the impact of utility infrastructure investments on future electric vehicle adoption. Per TURN’s suggestions, the Commission also limited utility ownership which reduces the risk of stranded costs that would be paid by SCE and SDG&E’s ratepayers The Commission also adopted TURN’s recommendations regarding requiring most MD-HD site hosts to purchase their own charging stations (related to SCE and PG&E’s SRPs) which will reduce program costs and establishes a lower cost program structure that can be applied to future MD-HD TE infrastructure programs. Regarding SDG&E’s SRP, TURN’s advocacy resulted in the Commission adopting a rebate program structure in lieu of a utility ownership structure, this program structure will significantly reduce ratepayer capital costs for the program and also saves ratepayers by reducing future operation and maintenance expenditures. All of the other benefits of TURN’s participation cannot be quantified as they involved policy issues. However, TURN’s participation contributed to the development of TE infrastructure programs that are better designed, less risky for ratepayers, and targeted to primarily fill gaps in the private market and lead to increased EV adoption and TE. TURN urges the Commission to recognize that these outcomes are important in this proceeding, and are likely to provide substantial benefits, albeit some benefits may be hard to quantify in dollars. Notedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed:In this request TURN seeks compensation for approximately 1,180 hours of expert witness time and approximately 748 hours of attorney time. This amount of resources was warranted and reasonable in light of a number of factors:1) all three utilities submitted individual applications for 21 distinct proposals, each with voluminous testimony that had to be individually analyzed and reviewed; 2) the scale and costs of utilities’ proposals was over $1.05 billion and all presented significant risks to ratepayers; 3) the policy significance of creating well designed and sustainable TE programs necessary to support the Governor’s ambitious TE adoption goals; 4) the robustness of the evidentiary record in this proceeding (including 12 days of evidentiary hearings in which TURN played an active role) and the large number of parties involved; and5) the necessity to ensure that the priority review projects tested concepts that would provide valuable data to inform future TE programs and investments.6) the wide breath of issues addressed in this proceeding and that fact that TURN filed seven separate exhibits of testimony, two opening briefs, two reply briefs and two sets of comments on each proposed decision. TURN also participated in multiple workshops related to these applications and an oral argument. TURN primarily devoted the resources of two attorneys, TURN’s legal fellow and TURN’s in-house energy analyst, who served as an expert witness to this proceeding in order to address key issues related to the deployment of TE infrastructure including, the light duty, medium duty and heavy duty electric vehicle market, EV technology, cost forecasting and program design. TURN also hired two outside consultants to provide expert testimony on the limited issues of rate design and cost recovery and ratemaking. In the following subsections, TURN describes the responsibilities of the different staff members and expert witnesses and explains the reasonableness of the hours and effort devoted to this proceeding.TURN excludes from this request work done by Elise Torres, Eric Borden and Marcel Hawiger after the issuance of D.18-01-040 developing an incentive mechanism for SDG&E and reviewing and analyzing SDG&E’s incentive mechanism proposal. TURN may seek compensation for these hours in a future request when the Commission addresses SDG&E’s Tier 3 Advice Letter proposing an incentive mechanism for its program. TURN also excludes from this request hours related to researching and drafting a Petition for Modification (PFM) TURN may file in response to D.18-05-040’s cost allocation. TURN may seek compensation for these hours when the Commission addresses the PFM. Attorney TimeElise TorresMs. Torres was TURN’s lead attorney in this proceeding and represented TURN in almost three weeks of evidentiary hearings, at settlement meetings and took the lead on drafting the majority of TURN’s legal pleadings, including opening and reply briefs on the seventeen PRPs and opening and reply briefs on the four SRPs. Ms. Torres assisted TURN’s experts with discovery, developing TURN’s positions, and reviewed and edited their testimonies and rebuttal testimonies. Ms. Torres also represented TURN in workshops and in ex parte meetings with Commissioner advisors addressing the PRPs and SDG&E’s residential SRP.Marcel HawigerMr. Hawiger covered this proceeding for Ms. Torres while she was out on parental leave from March 2018 through the beginning of June 2018. As a practitioner with over 20 years of utility ratemaking experience Mr. Hawiger also provided advice to this proceeding on the issues of cost allocation and cost recovery. Mr. Hawiger also represented TURN at the oral argument and in various ex parte meetings with Commissioner advisors addressing the SRPs. Consultation with other TURN Attorneys on Limited IssuesMs. Torres and Mr. Hawiger benefitted from occasional input from TURN General Counsel Robert Finkelstein on strategic matters and also on cost recovery issues. Ms. Torres also benefited from occasional input from TURN Senior Staff Attorney Hayley Goodson who provided expertise on ratemaking issues. Approximately 1.75 hours of Mr. Finkelstein and 1 hour of Ms. Goodson’s time is included in this request. Expert Witness TimeEric BordenTURN’s in-house energy analyst, Mr. Eric Borden, conducted the majority of TURN’s analyses in this case. Mr. Borden reviewed and analyzed the 17 priority review projects. Mr. Borden sponsored testimony is in the record on PG&E’s DC Fast Charging (DCFC) SRP, SCE and PG&E’s Medium Duty & Heavy Duty (MD-HD) SRPs and SDG&E’s Residential Charging SRP as Exhibits TURN-01, TURN-02, & TURN-04; as well as sponsoring rebuttal testimony addressing all four SRPs, Exhibit TURN-07. Mr. Borden addressed numerous issues related to the market for the various classes of EVs, ratepayer risks due to technology risks and stranded costs, air quality and GHG reduction benefits of TE, the cost effectiveness of the SRPs, and proposed a modified program for each of the SRPs, each with a size and design intended to improve potential TE adoption while better minimizing the risks of stranded costs. Mr. Borden testified in evidentiary hearings for approximately 5 hours. Mr. Borden also assisted Ms. Torres with preparations for cross examination and with the PRP and SRP briefs. He represented TURN at various workshops and in ex parte meetings with Commissioner advisors on the PRPs and SRPs. Mr. Borden devoted approximately 800 hours to this proceeding. Garrick JonesMr. Jones of InfraSMART Energy provided approximately 46 hours of expert assistance to TURN concerning detailed cost forecasts, cost recovery of capital, expenses and O&M costs, and balancing account treatment for both the MD-HD SRPs and the Residential Charging SRP. Mr. Jones drafted and sponsored testimony on the MD-HD SRPs and the Residential Charging SRP, Exhibit TURN-03 and TURN-05. Mr. Jones’ work was directly relevant to the proper comparison of costs, saving ratepayers on future costs by treating rebates as expenses, and to the adoption of one-way balancing account treatment and cost caps. Mr. Jones also assisted Ms. Torres with preparations for cross examination on cost recovery issues.William MarcusWilliam Marcus of MCPM Economics provided 33.42 hours of assistance to TURN regarding the issue of evaluating SDG&E’s proposed residential EV charging rates, the whole-house grid integrated rate (GIR) and the EV-only GIR. Mr. Marcus did significant analysis of the potential rate impacts of the whole-house and EV-only GIRs and their effect on non-participating ratepayers. Mr. Marcus drafted and sponsored testimony, Exhibit TURN-06 and rebuttal Testimony, Exhibit TURN-08, on the issue. Mr. Marcus also coordinated with ORA on the issue. In response to criticisms from parties, including TURN, SDG&E withdrew their request for approval of the whole-house GIR.Malavika RaoMs. Rao joined TURN as a Legal Fellow in December 2016. Ms. Rao assisted in this proceeding by reading other parties’ PRP opening and reply briefs, SRP testimonies and SRP briefs and identifying relevant issues, recommending positions and policy outcomes. Ms. Rao researched residential EV charging programs in other jurisdictions and DC fast charging programs and investments being made by state and private entities which informed TURN’s pleadings in this proceeding. Ms. Rao also drafted portions of TURN’s PRP opening and reply briefs and SRP opening and reply briefs, focused on PG&E’s DCFC SRP along with other issues. Ms. Rao also cross examined one of PG&E’s witnesses in evidentiary hearings on the DCFC SRP. Ms. Rao also participated in various workshops and in ex parte meetings with Commissioner advisors on the DCFC SRP on behalf of TURN. Ms. Rao devoted approximately 300 hours to this proceeding. Coordination among staff and presence of multiple TURN attorneys or experts at meetings:A relatively small percentage of hours reflect internal and external meetings involving two or more of TURN’s staff members. The Commission should recognize such meetings do not reflect internal duplication, but rather are essential to effective and efficient coverage of a large litigation case that involves multiple programs and issues.There are a limited number of hours devoted to internal planning meetings. Such meetings are essential to the effective development and implementation of TURN’s strategy in these cases. Strategy planning meetings with multiple staff are essential, as each staff member contributes particular knowledge and expertise to develop complex case strategy that require a certain amount of “group-think.” Furthermore, in a large proceeding with multiple utility proposals and issues such as this proceeding, TURN assigned a primary staff attorney and TURN’s legal fellow to cover different applications and issues, both to maximize the use of attorneys with particular expertise and for basic workload management. Some internal coordination is then necessary to ensure proper coverage and allocate responsibilities. Such a process is overall more efficient and effective than having a single attorney cover the entire proceeding on issues that are less familiar to the attorney. Compensation Related HoursTURN is also seeking compensation for 26.5 hours devoted to compensation related matters, primarily 20.25 hours associated with the preparation of this request by Ms. Torres. TURN assigned the task to Ms. Torres despite her relatively high hourly rate because of her in-depth familiarity with the proceeding and her experience with compensation requests ensured that the request could be prepared in a relatively small number of hours and a lower total cost, even at the relatively high hourly rate. Mr. Borden also spent 2.25 hours preparing this compensation request which was necessary due to the amount of time he dedicated to this proceeding and his familiarity with the issues. Due to the fact that this compensation request address two significant Commission decisions and work related to over 20 individual projects and programs proposed in three different utility applications, the amount of time dedicated to preparing this compensation request is reasonable. Received Amended Claim dated November 6, 2018.All claims notedc. Allocation of hours by issue: GP – 537.12 hours – 27% of totalGeneral Participation work essential to participation that typically spans multiple issues and/or would not vary with the number of issues that TURN addresses, including research related to various aspects TE that informed TURN’s testimony and pleadings. This also includes reviewing the utilities’ original applications and testimonies, the Scoping Memo, AC & ALJ Rulings, party motions, party ex parte notices, etc. Also includes time spent reviewing parties’ testimonies, rebuttal testimonies, opening briefs, and reply briefs. TURN also includes time reviewing the proposed decisions (PDs), parties’ comments on the PDs, and the final decisions and time spent preparing for and participating in ex parte meetings.Coord. – 51.13 hours – 3% of totalIncludes the amount of time TURN spent discussing the proceeding with Cal Advocates, ChargePoint, UCAN, Greenlining and the Joint Minority Parties, and determining which issues each would focus on to minimize duplication. Also includes limited hours meeting with other intervenors to discuss concerns regarding the utilities’?applications.?General Hearings (GH) – 247.50 hours - 13% of totalTime preparing for and participating in 12 days of evidentiary hearings, including the development of cross-examination questions and exhibits for multiple witnesses and TURN’s witnesses’ time testifying in evidentiary hearings. Also includes time spent preparing for and attending the pre-hearing conference (PHC).Cost Recovery – 45.49 hours – 2% of totalIncludes time spent by TURN’s attorneys and experts researching the utilities various cost recovery and cost allocation proposals for the PRPs and SRPs and developing TURN’s positions. Also includes expert witness time drafting testimony on cost recovery and cost allocation issues. Priority Review Programs (PRP) – 204.75 hours – 11% of totalIncludes time spent researching, evaluating and analyzing all three utilities’ priority review programs (17 in total) and developing TURN’s positions on these projects and some work related to drafting TURN’s filings related to the PRPs, including the opening and reply briefs and reviewing other parties’ PRP filings. Also includes some time related to the review of the Commission’s Proposed Decision addressing the PRPs and drafting TURN’s comments and reply comments on the PD. Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) – 14.13 – 1% of totalTime spent reviewing and analyzing the utilities proposals to promote TE in DACs for the PRPs and SRPs and advocating for meaningful investment in DACs and to benefit low-income customers. SRP Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFC) – 190.25 hours – 10% of totalTime spent reviewing and analyzing PG&E’s standard review program DCFC proposal. Includes time spent researching DCFC technologies and state and private investments in DCFCs in California. Also includes time spent developing portions of testimony and other TURN filings related to this program.SRP (SDG&E)– 247.33 hours – 13% of totalTime spent evaluating SDG&E’s residential charging proposal and related filings. Also includes time spent researching and developing recommendations regarding SDG&E’s Residential Charging Program and drafting testimony and portions of other TURN filings related to this program.SRP (SCE) – 137.71 hours - 7% of totalTime spent evaluating SCE’s MD-HD proposal and related filings. Also includes time spent researching and developing recommendations regarding SCE’s MD-HD Program and drafting testimony and portions of other TURN filings related to this program.SRP (PG&E) – 147.13 hours – 8% of totalTime spent evaluating PG&E’s MD-HD proposal and related filings. Also includes time spent researching and developing recommendations regarding PG&E’s MD-HD Program and drafting testimony and portions of other TURN filings related to this program. Discovery – 81.25 hours – 3% of totalIncludes TURN’s expert witness and attorney time preparing data requests and responding to data requests and TURN attorney time reviewing and editing data requests and TURN’s responses (TURN filed over 20 extensive data requests in this proceeding). Also includes time spent reviewing data request responses and responses to other party data requests.Sett. or Settlement – 29.75 hours - 2% of totalTime spent attending and participating in settlement negotiations, the vast majority of which relate to settlement negotiations regarding SDG&E SRP program and including a limited number of hours related exploring the possibility of settlement regarding SCE’s SRP proposal. Also includes work preparing for settlement meetings, including the review of proposals and associated research and P –26.5 hoursWork preparing TURN’s notices of intent to claim compensation for the three applications prior to consolidation (4 hours) and the final request for compensation and supporting documents (22.5 hours). As TURN described in the opening section of this compensation request, our substantial contributions to the Commission’s decisions were of such magnitude and so wide ranging that it warrants an award of full compensation. TURN submits that under the circumstances this information should suffice to address the allocation requirement under the Commission’s rules. Should the Commission wish to see additional or different information on this point, TURN requests that the Commission so inform TURN and provide a reasonable opportunity for TURN to supplement this showing accordingly.NotedSpecific Claim: *ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Elise Torres2017685.25$245Res. ALJ-345 (2.14% COLA, plus second 5% step increase in the 3-4-year experience tier, rounded to nearest $5)$167,886.25685.25$245.00 [B]$167,886.25Elise Torres201832.75$315See comment 1$10,316.2532.75$315.00 [C]$10,316.25Marcel Hawiger20170.50$425D.17-11-032$212.500.50$425.00$212.50Marcel Hawiger201827.5$435D.18-06-023$11,962.5027.50$435.00$11,962.50Robert Finkelstein 20181.75$530Res. ALJ-352 (2.3% 2018 COLA)$927.501.75$530.00$927.50Eric Borden2017722.5$205D.18-07-022$148,112.50722.50$205.00$148,112.50Eric Borden 201877.08$210Res. ALJ-352 (2.3% 2018 COLA)$16,186.8077.08$210.00 [D]$16,186.80Hayley Goodson20171$405D.18-01-020$405.001.00$405.00$405.00Malavika Rao 2017292.5$145D.18-06-023$42,412.50292.50$145.00$42,412.50Malavika Rao 201813$155Res. ALJ-352 (2.30% 2018 COLA, plus first 5% step increase in the 0-6 year experience tier, rounded to nearest $5)$2,015.0013.00$155.00 [E]$2,015.00Garrick Jones201746.27$200See Comment 1 $9,254.0046.27$200.00 [A]$9,254.00William Marcus201733.42$280D.18-01-021$9,357.6033.42$280.00$9,357.60Subtotal: $419,048.40Subtotal: $419,048.40INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Elise Torres20174$122.5@ 50% of $245 (2017 rate)$490.004.00$122.50$490.00Elise Torres 201820.25$157.5@ 50% of $315 (2018 Rate)$3,189.3720.25$157.50$3,189.38Eric Borden20182.25$105@ 50% of $210 (2018 Rate)$236.252.25$105.00$236.25Subtotal: $3,915.63Subtotal: $3,915.63COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1. Copies Copying of pleadings for ALJ and Commissioner Offices$50.80$50.802.PostagePostage for pleadings to CPUC$23.49$23.493.PhonePhone bill for calls or conference calls necessary for proceeding$25.25$25.25Subtotal: $99.54Subtotal: $99.54TOTAL REQUEST: $423,063.57TOTAL AWARD: $423,063.57 *We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit the records and books of the intervenors to the extent necessary to verify the basis for the award (§1804(d)). Intervenors must make and retain adequate accounting and other documentation to support all claims for intervenor compensation. Intervenor’s records should identify specific issues for which it seeks compensation, the actual time spent by each employee or consultant, the applicable hourly rates, fees paid to consultants and any other costs for which compensation was claimed. The records pertaining to an award of compensation shall be retained for at least three years from the date of the final decision making the award. **Travel and Reasonable Claim preparation time are typically compensated at ? of preparer’s normal hourly rate ATTORNEY INFORMATIONAttorneyDate Admitted to CA BARMember NumberActions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)If “Yes”, attach explanationMarcel HawigerJanuary 1998194244NoElise TorresDecember 2011280443NoRobert FinkelsteinJanuary 1990146391NoHayley GoodsonDecember 2003228535NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/Comment1Certificate of Service2Daily Time Records for Attorneys and Experts3Cost/expense detailsComment 12017 Hourly Rate for Garrick JonesTURN requests a 2017 hourly rate of $200 for Garrick Jones, President of InfraSMART Energy, LLC, which is the rate charged by Mr. Jones to TURN in 2017. The Commission has previously adopted hourly rates for Mr. Jones during his employment as an Economist at JBS Energy, Inc., including rates for his work in each year from 2007-2016. Most recently, the Commission adopted a rate of $190 for Mr. Jones’s work in 2016 while he was employed by JBS Energy, Inc. (D.18-01-021). In December 2016, Mr. Jones opened his own consulting firm, InfraSMART Energy, LLC, and this is the first rate request since his departure from JBS Energy, Inc. In 2017, Mr. Jones had 11 years of experience as an economist specializing in the analysis of utility economic, financial, and operational issues. That puts him near the top of the 7-12 year experience tier for Experts. In Resolution ALJ-345, the Commission adopted a range for hourly rates for Experts in the 7-12 year experience tier of $177-$295. The hourly rate TURN requests for Mr. Jones’s work in 2017, $200, is in the bottom quintile of that rate range, despite his being near the top of the experience tier.TURN recognizes that simply applying the 2017 COLA adopted in Resolution ALJ-345 (2.14%) to the 2016 rate authorized by the Commission for Mr. Jones’s work as an Economist employed by JBS Energy, Inc. ($190), would produce a 2017 hourly rate of $195 instead of the $200 rate TURN is requesting here. However, Mr. Jones is now the President of his own consulting firm, which carries increased risk and costs. He accordingly increased his billing rate commensurate with those risks and costs. Given these changed circumstances, coupled with the fact that Mr. Jones’s 2017 billing rate is still at the low end of the Commission’s authorized range for Experts with his level of experience, TURN submits that $200 an hour is a reasonable rate for Mr. Jones in ment 2TURN allocated all hours in the three utility specific applications (A.17-01-020, A.17-01-021, & A.17-01-022) to the consolidated proceeding A.17-01-020 ment 3 (Amended 11/06/18)2017 and 2018 Hourly Rates for Elise Torres2017 – For Ms. Torres’ work in 2017, TURN seeks a hourly rate of $245, an increase of 7.14% from the previously awarded rate of $230 for 2016. This increase is the general 2.14 COLA provided for in Res. ALJ-345, plus the second of two 5% step increases within the 3-4 year experience tier, authorized in Res. ALJ-345. See also D.16-08-015, pp. 11-12 (adopting a 2016 rate of $230 for Ms. Torres, and reflecting TURN’s explanation that this rate reflects the first of two 5% step increases within the 3-4 year experience tier).2018 – For Ms. Torres’ work in 2018, Turn seeks an hourly rate of $315. This rate is the lowest end of the range for attorneys in the 5-7 year experience tier provided for in Res. ALJ-352, which Mr. Torres has now entered. In D.16-04-037, the Commission found that Ms. Torres’s prior experience placed her in the 3-4 year experience bracket for work performed in 2015. Comment 4 (Amended 11/06/18)2018 Hourly Rate for TURN Energy Analyst Eric BordenTURN requests an hourly rate of $210 for Mr. Borden in 2018. This rate is equal to Mr. Borden’s previously authorized rate of $205 for 2017, increased by the 2018 COLA of 2.3% authorized in Resolution ALJ-ment 5 (Amended 11/06/18)2018 Hourly Rate for TURN Legal Fellow Malavika RaoFor Ms. Rao’s work in 2018, TURN seeks an hourly rate of $155, and increase of 7.30% from the previously awarded rate of $145 for 2017. This increase is the general 2.30% COLA provided for in Res. ALJ-352, plus the first 5% step increase within the 0-6 year experience tier, authorized in Res. ALJ-352.D. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments:ItemReason[A]Commission finds reasonable a rate of $200.00 per hour for Jones for 2017.[B]Commission finds reasonable a rate of $245.00 per hour for Torres for 2017.[C]Commission finds reasonable a rate of $315.00 per hour for Torres for 2018.[D]Commission finds reasonable a rate of $210.00 per hour for Borden for 2018.[E]Commission finds reasonable a rate of $155.00 per hour for Rao for 2018.PART IV:OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS:(Within 30 days after service of this Claim, Commission Staff or any other party may file a response to the Claim (see § 1804(c)))A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim?NoB. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTThe Utility Reform Network has made a substantial contribution to D.18-01-024 and D.18-05-040.The requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform Network’s representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $423,063.57.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERThe Utility Reform Network is awarded $423,063.57.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers, Southern California Edison Company ratepayers, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company ratepayers shall pay The Utility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional electric revenues for the 2017 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning October 18, 2018, the 75th day after the filing of The Utility Reform Network’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated November 29, 2018, at San Francisco, California.MICHAEL PICKER PresidentCARLA J. PETERMANLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN CommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D.18-11-043Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D.18-01-024 & D.18-05-040Proceeding(s):A.17-01-020, A.17-01-021, A.17-01-022Author:Cooke, GoldbergPayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers, Southern California Edison Company ratepayers, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company ratepayers.Intervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceThe Utility Reform Network8/3/18$423,063.57$423,063.57N/AN/AHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedEliseTorresAttorney$2452017$245EliseTorresAttorney$3152018$315MarcelHawigerAttorney$4252017$425MarcelHawigerAttorney$4352018$435RobertFinkelsteinAttorney$5302018$530HayleyGoodsonAttorney$4052017$405EricBordenExpert$2052017$205EricBordenExpert$2102018$210WilliamMarcusExpert$2802017$280GarrickJonesExpert$2002017$200MalavikaRaoExpert$1452017$145MalavikaRaoExpert$1552018$155(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download