California

?KHY/SL5/nd3Date of Issuance: 5/28/2020Decision 20-05-033 May 21, 2020BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication of San Diego Gas?& Electric Company (U902E) For Approval of Senate Bill 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals Regarding Medium and HeavyDuty Electric Vehicles and a VehicleToGrid Pilot.Application 1801012DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO THE NATIONAL ASIAN AMERICAN COALITION FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 1908026Intervenor:National Asian American CoalitionFor contribution to Decision (D.) 1908026Claimed: $115,872.50Awarded: $115,834.75Assigned Commissioner: Clifford RechtschaffenAssigned ALJs: Kelly A. Hymes and Sasha GoldbergPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: Decision 1908026 approves a settlement agreement with modifications for SDG&E’s medium and heavyduty EV charging infrastructure program, and vehicletogrid electric school bus pilot. The settlement as modified adopts a budget of $107.4?million (reduced from $150?million in the Application) to support approximately 3,0006,000 EVs, with targets for deployment in disadvantaged communities as defined using the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool on a statewide basis. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812:IntervenorCPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§?1804(a)):1. Date of Prehearing Conference:March 15, 2018Verified2. Other specified date for NOI:N/A3. Date NOI filed:April 09, 2018Verified4. 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:A.1801012Verified6. Date of ALJ ruling:January 04, 2019Verified7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):N/A8. 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.1801012Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:January 04, 2019Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):N/A12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§?1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.1908026Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 8/23/2019Verified15. File date of compensation request:10/18/2019Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesPART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see §?1802(j), §?1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.9804059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC Discussion1. NAAC actively participated in the proceeding: EP/PROCNAAC, on behalf of the National Diversity Coalition (NDC), reviewed testimony and filings, conducted discovery, participated in workshops and hearings, and submitted testimony, briefs, and comments. NDC analyzed the utility’s request, identified concerns regarding specific program aspects, and substantially contributed to the final decision by providing analysis and recommendations to better target underserved market segments, evaluate cost effectiveness, and improve the public benefits realized through the program. Although not every recommendation NDC provided was adopted, our perspectives and analyses led to more robust discussions and review of the program, contributing to the overall reasonableness of the final decision. Lowincome and minority ratepayers benefited from NDC’s advocacy in this proceeding because these groups are the most impacted by rate increases and environmental pollution, and yet these communities have the least capacity and resources to engage in Commission proceedings to make their voices heard. Therefore, it is essential that NDC highlight the needs and perspectives of lowincome and minority ratepayers in Commission proceedings. As in every case, NDC’s participation also entailed a significant amount of work to review and research issues and address procedural matters that did not result in outcomes which are directly evident in the final decision, but were nonetheless essential for effective participation in the overall case. Often there is no documentation of such activities in the record. In this proceeding, NDC highlights two specific documented instances of such activities. 1. NDC provided comments on procedural issues at the PHC, including the timing of SDGE filing their application without Commission direction or data from other programs, and the challenges of balancing proceeding schedules. 2. NDC supported Tesla’s position regarding the IBEW requirement, and successfully defended against CUE’s motion to strike our comments. The procedural process to defend our filing was necessary in order to provide the Commission with relevant information to consider in the final decision.Protest Of The National Diversity Coalition And The National Asian American Coalition To The Application Of San Diego Gas And Electric Company For Approval Of Its Medium And HeavyDuty Electric Vehicles Proposal And VehicleToGrid Pilot, (2/26/2018) (“Protest”)Prehearing Conference (3/15/2018) Reporter’s Transcript (“PHC Transcript”)“COMMISSIONER PETERMAN: I just wanted to thank Mr.?Gondai, in particular, for your comments about the challenges of balancing previous schedules. And we do care about the schedule for small intervenors. It's hard to make everybody happy, but please always come forward to us where you see a challenge or conflict. Because we do our best to try to address and accommodate.” – PHC Transcript at 5152. See Also PHC Transcript at 4849.Prepared Testimony Of Faith Bautista And Jin Sung On Behalf Of The National Diversity Coalition Regarding The San Diego Gas?& Electric Company Application For Medium And HeavyDuty Electric Vehicles Program And A VehicleToGrid Pilot, (8/17/2018) (“Testimony”)Comments of the National Diversity Coalition on the Joint Motion of Settling Parties For Commission Adoption of Settlement Agreement, (12/05/2018) (“Settlement Comments”)Reply Comments Of The National Diversity Coalition On The Joint Motion Of Settling Parties For Commission Adoption Of Settlement Agreement, (12/20/2018) (“Settlement Reply Comments”)Response Of The National Diversity Coalition To The Motion Of The Coalition Of California Utility Employees To Strike Portions Of The Reply Comments Of The National Diversity Coalition, (1/08/2019) (“Reply to CUE MTS”)Comments Of The National Diversity Coalition On The Proposed Decision Of Administrative Law Judges Hymes And Goldberg, (8/05/2019) (“Comments on PD”)Reply Comments Of The National Diversity Coalition On The Proposed Decision Of Administrative Law Judges Hymes And Goldberg, (8/12/2019) (“Reply to PD”)D.1908026, Decision Approving Settlement On Application, (8/23/2019) (“Decision” or “D1908026”)“This proceeding was submitted on February 21, 2019 with the issuance of the ALJs’ email ruling denying CUE’s motion to strike portions of NDC’s reply Comments on the proposed Settlement.” – Decision at 7.Verified2. Disadvantaged Communities: DACNDC consistently highlighted the need to focus TE investments in disadvantaged communities (“DAC”) burdened by pollution and poverty. In response to SDGE’s original application, NDC argued for locating the vehicletogrid school bus pilot (“Pilot”) in a DAC, adopting a reasonable DAC deployment target for the MD/HD Program, eliminating unworkable “DAC support” siting provisions, and utilizing the appropriate statewide DAC definition. The Proposed Settlement agreed to site the Pilot in a DAC and eliminate “DAC support” provisions, but reduced the MD/HD Program DAC deployment target and retained the utilitywide DAC definition. NDC opposed the Proposed Settlement and continued to advocate for the reasonable and statutorily required statewide DAC definition. NDC then supported the PD’s adoption of the statewide DAC definition, and defended it against SDGE’s unwarranted “hybrid” DAC definition, as well as their unreasonable request to further reduce the DAC deployment target. NDC also noted the ambiguity in the PD’s provision for an advice letter filing to report on DAC deployment. The Final Decision approved the Proposed Settlement with incorporated provisions in line with NDC’s initial recommendations. Further, the Final Decision also adopted our recommendations for a statewide DAC definition, maintained the PD’s DAC deployment target, and clarified the AL reporting requirements. “SDGE has indicated some preference for working with a school district in a DAC, but siting this project in a DAC should be made a requirement.” – Protest at 8.See Also Protest at 1112.“But given that there is a highlight of lowincome and moderateincome communities, which we support, we would also like there to be a specific highlighting of disadvantaged communities and their needs, which is often specifically referenced in these kinds of cases. And I believe the code section is 740.12(a)(1)(c) that highlights considering their needs.” PHC Transcript at 43.“Data responses from SDGE indicate that the utilitywide DAC definition is much broader than the statewide definition. The utilitywide would qualify 174 census tracts as “disadvantaged”, over five times more than the 33 tracts that qualify on the statewide basis. This would make an inappropriately large number of tracts that are not actually disadvantaged eligible to receive funds meant to target areas that are the most in need.” – Testimony at 11Analysis of prior utilitywide DAC definition and inapplicability to SDGE MD/HD program. – Testimony at 1112.Legal and policy support for statewide DAC definition. – Testimony at 1318.“… broadening the DAC support definition to include miles traveled and emissions in DACs does not appear to be meaningful. Without actual metrics to determine if EVs really support DACs without charging infrastructure being physically located in DACs, the Commission should not approve this condition.” – Testimony at 19.“NDC was the only intervenor to specifically discuss the deficiencies of SDGE’s utilitywide DAC definition…Our analysis supports a recommendation to use the statewide DAC definition, designating as disadvantaged only those tracts scoring in the top 25% of CES scores, as the California EPA (“CalEPA”) does.” – Settlement Comments at 89. See also Settlement Comments 916.“As the PD found, ‘We do not anticipate this [statewide definition] modification will impact SDG&E’s ability to meet its target of spending a minimum of 30 percent of its infrastructure budget in DACs.’ NDC agrees, and therefore the final decision should incorporate the statewide DAC definition and not allow any further reduction in the DAC deployment requirement.” – Comments on PD at 3“Further, it is not clear what information the Commission is seeking with this advice letter, as the language indicates that the filing is optional (“SDG&E may file”), and may address “whether” SDGE seeks to expand the DAC definition, but does not require particular information or articulate any standard for seeking such an expansion.” – Comments on PD at 34“Remove vague and unnecessary language in Ordering Paragraph 3 regarding an Advice Letter filing related to a possible expansion of the DAC definition.” – Comments on PD at ii.“SDGE’s perception that their DAC requirement is excessive may stem from the unreasonably excessive size of their overall program… SCE claims to have about 45% of the statewide DACs in their service territory, which is about 893 tracts. SDGE’s 37 DACs are only 4% of SCE’s 893. Meaning that a ‘geographically proportional’ program based on DACs would support a SDGE program 4% the size of SCE’s program.” – Reply Comments on PD at 5.See Also Reply Comments on PD at 14 for additional NDC defense of statewide DAC definition.“Do the proposed projects adequately address disadvantaged communities, lowincome communities and moderateincome communities?...” Scoping Memo And Ruling Of Assigned Commissioner And Joint Ruling With Administrative Law Judges, (3/30/2018), List of Issues section (e), at 5. (added to draft list of issues following PHC)“NDC also protests the DAC definition the Settling Parties agree to. The Settling parties agree to SDG&E’s service territory definition for DACs, as approved in Advice Letter (AL) 2876E on March 31, 2016. NDC recommends the Commission change the DAC definition for the Program and V2G Pilot to the statewide methodology to ensure ratepayer funds are appropriately focused in communities that are the most impacted by MD/HD emissions.” – Decision at 2930“The issue of what DAC methodology to use for SDG&E’s MD/HD Program is one that is subject to more scrutiny not only because of the policy objectives of SB 350, but also due to NDC’s compelling figures illustrating the disproportion of which San Diego communities would qualify under the service territory definition. We agree with NDC that in order to prioritize which areas are truly disadvantaged the statewide DAC methodology should be utilized for SDG&E’s Program. We modify the DAC definition in the Settlement to the top quartile of communities on a statewide basis, as defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool.” Decision at 3940 (emphasis added).While the Settlement’s DAC definition was adopted through a 2016 AL, we agree with NDC’s assertions, and adopt their recommendation to apply the statewide methodology utilized by CalEPA’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool. – Decision at 43.“the [settling] parties propose the Commission adopt a “hybrid”’ approach: twothirds of the 30 percent DAC target will be reserved for sites qualified under the statewide methodology, and onethird of the 30 percent DAC target reserved for sites qualified under SDG&E’s service territory definition… Contrary to SDG&E’s opening comments, NDC supports the proposed decision’s DAC definition methodology…At this time we decline to change the proposed decision’s DAC definition.” – Decision at 50.“We want to see SDG&E’s Program succeed, especially in reaching its DAC target, and therefore make a few changes to the advice letter filing process. First, we change the ‘option’ for SDG&E to file an advice letter on its DAC target by making it a requirement. Second, we change the time for filing an advice letter on SDG&E’s DAC target to after 2 years of program implementation. Third, we clarify what information SDG&E shall provide to the Commission’s Energy Division on its DAC target. This additional information should provide more transparency on what obstacles SDG&E may face in working to meet its DAC target.” – Decision at 51.Finding of Fact 7:“According to NDC, under the service territory approach, 174 census tracts would be categorized as ‘disadvantaged’ which is over five times more than the 33 tracts that would qualify using the statewide approach…” – Decision at 54Conclusion of Law 5:“The modification that SDG&E utilize the statewide methodology as opposed to the service territory definition for DACs is consistent with the Commission’s findings in D.1805040, reasonable in light of the whole record and in the public interest.” – Decision at 5455.Ordering Paragraph 3:“3. Consistent with the terms and conditions attached as Appendix A and Section 6.4 of this decision, San Diego Gas?& Electric Company (SDG&E) must apply the statewide definition, as defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool to identify which top quartile of communities on a statewide basis qualify as disadvantaged communities for its MediumDuty and HeavyDuty Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Program. At the end of two years of program implementation, SDG&E shall file a Tier 2 Advice Letter with the Commission’s Energy Division that at a minimum addresses: (1) status of its 30 percent disadvantaged community target; (2) how many disadvantaged community sites have signedup for the MediumDuty and HeavyDuty Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Program; (3) how many disadvantaged community sites would have signedup but do not qualify under the statewide definition; and (4) whether SDG&E is seeking to expand its disadvantaged community definition to the one approved in Advice Letter 2876E.” Decision at 5657. (emphasis added, modified in response to NDC comments on PD)Verified3. Rebates: RBTEIn response to SDGE’s original proposal to offer 100% rebates on EVSE, NDC argued that rebates should be limited to 50% of EVSE costs. Further, rebates should focus on encouraging adoption by school buses, transit buses, and nonFortune 1000 companies in DACs.The Proposed Settlement incorporated a 50% of EVSE costs limit for rebates and targeted rebates only to companies in DACs and bus operators anywhere. Additionally, the Proposed Settlement included a provision to potentially release 50% of DAC rebate funds after the third year, and use those funds to offer rebates to any location. NDC continued to argue that rebates should be limited only to DACs and buses, not made available to all locations. TURN also made substantial arguments similarly advocating for the limited use of released DAC rebate funds. NDC reduced the number of hours we are claiming related to this issue. The Final Decision approved the Proposed Settlement with incorporated provisions in line with NDC’s initial recommendations for 50% limits on EVSE rebates and availability only in DACs and bus sites.The Final Decision also modifies the Settlement Agreement to allow released DAC rebate funds to be used only by bus operators in any location. “EVSE subsidies should be limited to only an amount that will encourage participation, but not provide a huge windfall at ratepayer expense. Program participants will be industrial businesses that have budgets for the purchase, repair, maintenance, and fuel of their M/HD equipment. Participants are also the main causes of the pollution this program is designed to reduce, and participants have profited from the operations that caused that pollution. So as long as costs to participate in the program are less than or equal to the cost of operating a gas fuel fleet, there is incentive to sign up. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable that participants fund a significant portion of program costs.” – Protest at 11.“Allow EVSE rebates for nonFortune 1000 customers in DACs, up to 50% of EVSE costs, not to exceed the total EVSE costs accounting for other funding sources... Allow EVSE rebates for transit and school bus agencies, up to 50% of EVSE costs, not to exceed the total EVSE costs accounting for other funding sources.” – Testimony at ii.“rebate levels for transit and school bus EVSE are established in consultation with the utility’s PAC. Rebate levels should not exceed 50 percent of the charger cost; rebate levels for EVSE installed at sites in DACs are established in consultation with the utility’s PAC. Rebate levels should not exceed 50 percent of the charger cost, and must not exceed the cost the participant pays for the EVSE after accounting for other funding sources. Rebates must only be offered to participants in DAC who are not on the Fortune 1000 list;” – Testimony at 21. (NDC recommendations to align with prior proceedings)“SDGE has proposed a rebate design that offers a 100% rebate on the cost of EVSE for the first year of their program and reduces the rebate amount by 10% each year until the fifth year. For DACs and Transit and School Bus customers, a full 100% rebate will be offered every year…”– Testimony at 22. See Also SDG&E MD/HD EV Application Chapter 2 at HJR6. “As an initial matter, NDC opposes offering 100% rebates on the cost of EVSE… In D.1805040, the Commission found 100% EVSE rebates to be excessive, and required each utility to offer EVSE rebates not to exceed 50 percent of the cost of the EVSE, and not to exceed the cost the site host pays for the EVSE after accounting for any other funding sources used for EVSE procurement. Such EVSE rebates were limited to transit and bus agencies, and customers located in DACs not on the Fortune 1000 list. In the same way, EVSE rebates in SDGE’s program should be limited to 50 percent of the cost of EVSE for transit, bus, and nonFortune 100 DAC customers, not to exceed the cost of the EVSE accounting for other funding sources.” – Testimony at 2223.“In order to achieve SB350 TE program goals of efficiently and rapidly reducing emissions, investments must focus on areas that need the most support, both financially and environmentally. Limiting rebates to school bus companies, transit bus companies, and nonFortune 1000 companies in DACs furthers this goal by directing additional funding to help overcome the higher barriers to electrification in DACs.” – Reply Comments on Settlement at 23“The Program will provide rebates, up to 50 percent, for transit and school bus EVSE, and for participants (1) who are located in DACs and (2) not on the Fortune 1000 list.” Decision at 22. See Also Decision at 27.“We therefore find it reasonable to require a modification to this term (Section III (I), Settlement). After 4 years, SDG&E should be authorized to spend any released funds reserved for DAC rebates on locations for sites supporting transit and school buses, regardless of whether the transit and school bus sites are located in DACs.” – Decision at 38.“We modify Part III (I) of the Settlement to specify that any unallocated funds reserved for DAC rebates after the fourth year be released to support any location electrifying transit and school buses, including a 50 percent rebate for those sites’ EVSE.” – Decision at 42. See Also Decision at 38.COL 4“Consistent with the Commission’s findings in D.1805040, SDG&E should spend any released funds reserved for DAC rebates on locations supporting transit and school buses.” – Decision at 54.OP 2“Consistent with the terms and conditions attached as Appendix A and Section 6.4 of this decision, San Diego Gas?& Electric Company may also spend any released funds reserved for disadvantaged community rebates after four years on sites supporting transit and school buses.” – Decision at 56Decision Appendix A at 6, Settlement Agreement section III.H. “SDG&E will set rebate levels for transit and school bus EVSE in consultation with its PAC. Rebates for transit and school bus EVSE will not be limited to deployments in Disadvantaged Communities (“DAC”). The rebates must not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the EVSE. Rebates may also be offered to participants: (1)?who are located in DAC…; and (2)?not on the Fortune 1000 list…”Verified4. Cost: COSTIn response to SDGE’s original proposal, NDC raised concerns over program costs as well as the estimates and calculations used for the budget. NDC also argued that SDGE’s program costs should be based on cost estimates used for PGE and SCE in their MD/HD TE programs, and scaled proportionally for SDGE’s territory. Reflecting some of the recommendations by NDC and other parties, the Proposed Settlement included a budget of $107m, reduced from their original request of $150m, supporting 3,000 to 6,000 MD/HD EVs. NDC continued to argue for a budget calculated to support an appropriate number of EVs for SDGE’s service territory. Although NDC did not ultimately prevail on obtaining further budget reductions, our arguments helped build the record and contributed to the considerations in the final decision. NDC reduced the number of hours we are claiming related to this issue.The Final Decision approved the Proposed Settlement with incorporated provisions in line with NDC’s initial recommendations for a reduced budget. The Final Decision evaluated arguments for greater reductions, but did not ultimately change the total budget amount. “NDC has significant concerns regarding the cost estimates for this program. As an initial matter, the overall program is exceedingly large for a program that is not based upon a measured and demonstrated need and proven assumptions.” – Protest at 9.“Further, without deployment caps for each vehicle class, overall program costs cannot reasonably be calculated, especially given the huge range of estimated subsidies for EVSE, from $1,000 up to $200,000. If SDGE’s is not able to attract the participants they claim, ratepayers will overpay as much as $200,000 for every transit bus onroute charger that SDGE does not deploy, and $45,000 for every class 7 and class 8 charger that is not needed.” – Protest at 10.“In the SB350 TE Proceedings decision, the Commission developed reasonable costs estimates for electrification within each individual MD/HD vehicle sector. The Commission then assumed a target number of deployments in each vehicle sector based on the Commission’s own priorities and calculated an appropriate budget, but did not require the utilities to adhere to the specific vehicle sector mix used… Since the Commission in D.1805040 did not require the utilities to adhere to the specific vehicle mix used in their calculations, the overall budgets approved for PGE and SCE are still useful as comparisons to SDGE’s program, regardless of SDGE’s intended vehicle sector targets. A budget based on SDGE’s total vehicle target that is proportional to those supported by the budgets approved for PGE and SCE will provide a reasonable estimate of program costs.” – Testimony at 45See Also Testimony at 410.NDC argued for further reductions from the Proposed Settlement budget to support a program size appropriate for SDGE’s territory. – Settlement Comments at 1729“NDC raises concerns over certain elements of the proposed Program and Pilot in its Protest. NDC has significant concerns about the cost estimates for the Program. NDC explains the costs and size of the Program are high given the limited data available on how best to accelerate TE in the MD/HD market in addition to the variable costs associated with the manufacturing of MD/HD EVs.” – Decision at 16.“NDC believes SDG&E’s estimated EVSE subsidies could not have been reasonably calculated given the varying costs in EVSE associated with each class of MD/HD EVs.” – Decision at 16.“With respect to the size of the Program, TURN, SDAP, and NDC contend the Program is oversized relative to SDG&E’s service territory and commercial customer base. All three parties point to initial testimony that they assert overestimated costs and inflated EV adoption modeling.” – Decision at 28. “Given some of the parties’ protests that the Program was too large and costly, the agreed upon lower budget and vehicle/site mix targets are reasonable given the Settling Parties’ expectation for SDG&E to do more with less funding than originally requested.” – Decision at 33.VerifiedDuplication of Effort (§?1801.3(f) and §?1802.5):Intervenor’s AssertionCPUC Discussiona.Was the Public Advocate’s Office of the 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:CalAdvocates (formerly ORA), TURNVerifiedd. Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication:TURN is a wellrespected and strong advocate for the interests of ratepayers generally, and as such, their positions aligned with those of NAAC on certain issues. CalAdvocates (formerly ORA) initially argued against the cost of the program on similar grounds as NAAC and TURN, and even recommended a similar budget of $65.4?million for a program size of 3,081 EVs. However, they later signed on to the Proposed Settlement agreement for $107?million and up to 6,000 EVs, and our positions were no longer aligned. NAAC made efforts to coordinate with other intervenors who had similar positions and concerns, in order to reduce duplication, plan strategies, and coordinate efforts, allowing other intervenors to speak from their experience and expertise, while presenting our own unique perspective as community leaders. These efforts are logged under the heading “COOR” in timesheets, along with efforts to settle and resolve issues with other parties. Therefore, while other parties may have had positions that were compatible or similar to NAAC, our perspectives and goals were necessarily differentiated, and were supplemented, not duplicated, by efforts toward common goals.Although NAAC worked with other parties, other ratepayer advocates do not represent the same minority communities as NAAC does. They do not have the same direct grassroots involvement in those communities, and do not give the same focus and priority to the needs of diverse communities. The arguments of other ratepayer advocates, even for the same outcomes, are not based on the same understanding and expertise gained from direct service to and input from ratepayers that NAAC brings. NAAC contributes a distinct perspective on the needs of the minority community, gained through grassroots engagement and experience, which helps inform and lend credibility to Commission decisions.The Commission should find that NAAC efficiently coordinated with other parties to avoid undue duplication. To the extent that NAAC is claiming compensation for any duplication that may have occurred, it served to supplement, complement, or contribute to the presentation of another party, consistent with Cal Public Utilities Code Section 1802.5.Note:A prior Intervenor Compensation decision disallowed all hours NAAC claimed for “coordination”, stating that “[NAAC claimed hours] for coordination with other parties. Such hours spent merely avoiding duplication are not compensable.” (D.1811041, Part III, section D, items A, B, C).As NAAC’s timesheets indicate, the hours we claim for “coordination” are used to plan strategy, engage in settlement negotiations, and discuss ways to reduce duplication while supplementing and complimenting the common positions of other parties. Additionally, NAAC represents NDC, a coalition of almost 2 dozen different communitybased organizations. In order to effectively communicate case developments and receive member feedback on positions, a significant number of discussions must take place. Only a small fraction of those numerous meetings are included in our records, and only the portion of time during those meeting that are directly relevant to the instant case are recorded in our timesheets. Time we record as “coordination” is more than merely avoiding duplication, and should all be eligible for compensation. Prior decisions on NAAC’s Intervenor Compensation claims have awarded such hours without issue. (D.1808025, D.1704015, D.1609031). It also appears that claims by other intervenors for similarly identified hours have been granted without issue. (D.1811043 includes hours coordinating with NDC, formerly JMP – see Part III.A.c; see also D.1811047). This holds true even in instances where another party objected to the intervenor’s excessive coordination with parties not eligible for compensation. (D.1903022, Part IV.A.)For this claim, NAAC has only included the relevant portions of the minimum number of discussions with other parties and NDC members that were necessary to coordinate and direct our advocacy efforts. Such discussions to evaluate issues, positions, recommendations, settlement offers, etc. are necessary for effective and efficient participation. NotedPART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:NAAC is seeking approximately $115,872.50 as the reasonable cost of our participation in the proceeding. Our analysis of the reasonableness of the utility’s requests and recommendations on issues that impact underserved ratepayers helped the Commission craft a decision that focuses greater resources toward communities that are actually burdened by pollution and poverty while reducing unreasonable costs and expenses for all ratepayers. For the most part, NAAC cannot calculate precisely the exact monetary benefits to ratepayers from these advocacy efforts, given the nature of the issues and the fact that the Commission decision has yet to be fully implemented. However, our analysis and recommendations directly contributed to the approximately $43?million reduction in program costs from the original application, and made investments in disadvantaged communities approximately 5 times more effective through appropriate identification of these areas. As such, our requested compensation is a small fraction of the value of the savings and efficiencies attributable to our advocacy, and should be found reasonable. CPUC DiscussionNotedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed:This claim for compensation includes 340.40 total hours for NAAC attorneys and experts. NAAC submits that this is a reasonable amount of time, given the scope of this proceeding, volumes of pleadings and testimony involved, and the breadth of issues examined. The hours claimed were devoted to research and analysis, conducting discovery, discussions and negotiations with other parties, drafting testimony and pleadings, participation in workshops and hearings, as well as other procedural matters. The vast bulk of the work was handled by Director of Legal Advocacy Tadashi Gondai. To reduce overall costs and duplication of efforts, Mr.?Gondai took primary responsibility for the case with little support from additional personnel. NAAC President and CEO Faith Bautista played an integral part in the case, relying upon her expertise in community outreach, her grassroots connections to minority community leaders, and working relationships with utilities and corporations. Through her network of contacts, she was able to draw together a diverse coalition of stakeholders to identify and advocate for the needs and concerns of the communities that will be affected by these decisions and to discuss those issues with utility leadership. Her efforts allowed the parties to better understand each other’s positions, and goals, develop understandings on areas of common interest, and focus intervention and advocacy on the concerns of lowincome minority communities.NAAC has made voluntary reductions for work spent developing recommendations that were not adopted. However, some time is still legitimately claimed for the necessary steps of reviewing the utility proposals, reasonably researching, and presenting arguments for Commission consideration, as these efforts led to a more wellreasoned and better supported final decision. NAAC submits that the requested hours are reasonable, both for each attorney and expert, and in the aggregate. Therefore, NAAC seeks compensation for all hours recorded by our attorneys and experts as submitted in this pensation Request Preparation Time: NAAC is requesting compensation for 18.00 hours devoted to the preparation of the compensation request, and an additional 1.50 hours for the preparation of the initial Notice of Intent to Claim Compensation. This number of hours is reasonable in light of the fact that this was an active proceeding, with a voluminous amount of material which needed to be reviewed in preparing this claim. Mr.?Gondai reviewed timesheets, emails, filings, motions, briefs, comments, testimony, transcripts, and decisions in order to properly allocate time by issue. He also reviewed IComp claim procedures and prior IComp decisions to determine what work could be appropriately claimed, and omit hours spent on work that was duplicative of other intervenor efforts, did not contribute to the final decision, or exceeded normal time allotments for similar activities. The Commission should find that the hours claimed are reasonable. Notedc. Allocation of hours by issue:The attached timesheets (Attachment 2) indicate hours spent addressing separate issues identified according to the following codes:Effective Participation (EP) – 22.3%: time and effort not tied to single specific issues but which was nonetheless essential to effective participation, such as analyzing testimony for relevant issues, reviewing other party filings, attending workshops, and discussing position and strategy.Procedural (PROC) – 15.0%: time and effort spent preparing and engaging in conferences and hearings, researching and advocating for legal standards, and addressing other procedural requirements. Coordination (COOR) – 8.5%: time and effort spent coordinating with other parties, planning joint strategy, engaging in settlement discussions, and reducing duplication while supplementing common positions.Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) – 33.2%: research and advocacy on the proper definition of DAC and the appropriate level of resources to direct to these areas.Rebates (RBTE) – 5.7%: research and advocacy on appropriate levels of EVSE rebates and subsidies and market segment eligibility.Costs (COST) – 8.7%: research and advocacy on the appropriate budget and cost estimates for the program.Discovery (DISC) – 6.6%: time and effort spent on research, drafting, and reviewing data requests and responses.EP–22.3%PROC–15.0%COOR–8.5%DAC–33.2%RBTE–5.7%COST–8.7%DISC–6.6%Total:100%NotedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Tadashi Gondai2018213.60$325See Comment #3$69,420.00213.60$325.00[1]$69,420.00Tadashi Gondai2019119.25$350See Comment #4$41,737.50119.25$350.00[2]$41,737.50Faith Bautista20187.55$175D.1808025, ALJ352$1,321.257.55$170.00[3]$1,283.50Subtotal: $ 112,478.75Subtotal: $112,441.00 INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $Basisfor Rate*Total $HoursRateTotal $Tadashi Gondai20181.5$162.50$325/2$243.751.50$162.50$243.75Tadashi Gondai201918.00$175$350/2$3,15018.00$175.00$3,150.00Subtotal: $3,393.75Subtotal: $3,393.75COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmountOffice and Travel expensesNAAC is not claiming any costs in this request for printing, postage, travel, or other office expenses. NAAC utilized edocument readers, email, phone, and conference calls to reduce printing, filing, and meeting costs and to minimize overall costs, adding to the reasonableness of our claim.$0.00NotedTOTAL REQUEST: $115,872.50TOTAL AWARD: $115,834.75 *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 AffectingEligibility (Yes/No?)If “Yes”, attach explanationTadashi GondaiDec 3, 2010273186NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment orComment #Description/CommentAttachment 1Certificate of ServiceAttachment 2Timesheets of NAAC Attorneys and ExpertsComment 3For Mr.?Gondai’s 2018 hourly rate, NAAC is seeking to qualify Mr.?Gondai to move to a higher experience level, pursuant to the normal rateincrease process discussed in D.0804010 at page 8. The Commission first set Mr.?Gondai’s hourly compensation rate at $225/hr, finding that as of 2015 “Mr.?Gondai possesses approximately 2.5 years of relevant work experience” (D.1606050 at 14). Since 2015, Mr.?Gondai has been continually active before the CPUC, intervening in every general rate case from the major investor owned utilities, applications related to transportation electrification, major telecom mergers, and numerous other proceedings that impact minority communities. Therefore, by 2018, the additional 3 years of active, fulltime legal practice before the CPUC since 2015 puts Mr.?Gondai’s relevant work experience at 5.5 years. Pursuant to ALJ357 (4/8/2019), Attorneys with 57 years of relevant work experience as of 2018 are entitled to an intervenor compensation rate in the range of $315340. Given Mr.?Gondai’s 5.5 years of relevant work experience and 8 years of overall attorney work experience as of 2018, NAAC requests that the rate for Attorney Tadashi Gondai for 2018 be increased to $325. If the Commission is not inclined to adjust the 2018 compensation rate for Mr.?Gondai to a higher experience level based on his 5.5 years of relevant experience, NAAC requests that Mr.?Gondai’s 2018 rate for this claim only be based off his last authorized rate for 2017 ($235, D.1808025), with the 2018 COLA (2.3%) and 5% step increase applied. This would be $252.43, rounded to the nearest fivedollar increment of $250. $235 * 1.023 * 1.05 = $252.43Further, if Mr.?Gondai’s rate is not adjusted based on higher experience level, NAAC requests that the 2018 rate used in this claim NOT be deemed the official adopted rate for Mr.?Gondai, as NAAC may seek to justify a higher rate for his 2018 work in a future compensation request. Comment 4For Mr.?Gondai’s 2019 hourly rate, pursuant to ALJ357 (4/8/2019) NAAC requests the application of the 2019 COLA (2.35%) as well as a first 5% step increase for a rate reflecting Mr.?Gondai’s 6.5 years of relevant experience. If the Commission adopted the “higher experience level” increase for 2018 requested in Comment 3, this would be the first step increase for Mr.?Gondai in the 57 year experience level, and would yield an hourly rate of $349.27, rounded to the nearest fivedollar increment of $350. $325 * 1.0235 * 1.05 = $349.27If the Commission only adopted a 2018 rate for Mr.?Gondai based on his 2017 rate, this would be the second step increase for Mr.?Gondai in the 34 year experience level, and yield an hourly rate of $268.67, rounded to the nearest fivedollar increment of $270. $250 * 1.0235 * 1.05 = $268.67If the Commission is not inclined to adjust the 2019 compensation rate for Mr.?Gondai to a higher experience level based on his 6.5 years of relevant experience, NAAC requests that the 2019 rate used in this claim NOT be deemed the official adopted rate for Mr.?Gondai, as NAAC may seek to justify a higher rate for his 2019 work in a future compensation request.D. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustment:ItemReason[1]Adopting $325 rate for 2018 based on 57 years experience tier for 2018. Gondai has more than 5 years of relevant and fulltime legal practice before the CPUC.[2]Adopting $350 rate for 2019. New rate was based on Gondai’s $325 2018 rate, adjusted to reflect ALJ Res 357 2019 2.35% COLA plus a first 5% step up increase. [3]Adopting $170 rate for 2018. New rate based on Bautista’s $165 2017 rate adjusted to reflect ALJ Res 352 2018 2.30% COLA.PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTSWithin 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 30day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTNational Asian American Coalition has made a substantial contribution to D.1908026.The requested hourly rates for National Asian American Coalition’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 are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $115,834.75.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812.ORDERNational Asian American Coalition shall be awarded $115,834.75.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, San Diego Gas?& Electric Company shall pay the National Asian American Coalition the total award. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, threemonth nonfinancial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning January?1,?2020, the 75th day after the filing of the National Asian American Coalition’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated May 21, 2020, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJER PresidentLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMA CommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2005033Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D1908026Proceeding(s):A1801012Author:ALJ Goldberg and ALJ HymesPayer(s):San Diego Gas?& Electric CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceNational Asian American Coalition10/18/2019$115,872.50$115,834.75N/ASee CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments, above.Hourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert,or AdvocateHourlyFee RequestedYear HourlyFee RequestedHourlyFee AdoptedTadashi GondaiAttorney$3252018$325Tadashi GondaiAttorney$3502019$350Faith BautistaAdvocate$1752018$170(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download