Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?MBL/nd3Date of Issuance 8/27/2021Decision 21-08-031 August 19, 2021BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Examine Electric Utility DeEnergization of Power Lines in Dangerous Conditions.Rulemaking 1812005Decision granting compensation to The Utility Reform Network for substantial contribution to Decision 2005051Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network (“TURN”)For contribution to Decision (D.) 2005051Claimed: $61,639.05Awarded: $59,110.30Assigned Commissioner: Marybel BatjerAssigned ALJs: Brian Stevens, Marcelo Poirier, Valerie Kao, Regina DeAngelisPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA.Brief description of Decision: In D.2005051, the Commission adopted additional deenergization guidelines for the electric investor owned utilities. The guidelines adopted in D.2005051 expanded upon those adopted in Resolution ESRB8 and D.1905042.Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812:IntervenorCPUC VerificationTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§?1804(a)):1.Date of Prehearing Conference:2/19/2019Verified2.Other specified date for NOI:N/A3.Date NOI filed:3/21/2019Verified4.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:R.1901011Verified6.Date of ALJ ruling:July 26, 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:R.1901011Verified10.Date of ALJ ruling:July 26, 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.2005051Verified14.Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 6/5/2020Verified15.File date of compensation request:8/3/2020Verified16.Was the request for compensation timely?YesAdditional Comments on Part I: #Intervenor’s Comment(s)CPUC Discussion1The July 26, 2019 ruling for R.1901011 states, “This rebuttable presumption of eligibility also applies, retroactively, to The Utility Reform Network’s participation in other Commission proceedings, in which no ruling on this intervenor’s NOI demonstrating financial hardship pursuant to Section 1802(h) has issued.” (pp.?78).NotedPART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONDid 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. NotificationTURN urged the Commission to adopt inlanguage notifications for deenergization events in areas where there are populations for whom English is not a native or dominant language. D.2005051 agreed and stated that it is reasonable “that the electric IOUs consider alternative forms of inlanguage communications to reach the public when the conventional channels of communication are overloaded or are not functioning.”D.2005051, p.?28.TURN Comments (February 19, 2020), pp.?12.D.2005051, p.?30.Verified2. Community Resource Centers (CRC)TURN recommended that CRCs should provide charging and WiFi services to assist customers, particularly the vulnerable customers. In addition, TURN suggested that CRCs should be established in close coordination with local healthcare providers and local public health departments. TURN also noted that depending on the purposes served by the CRCs, they may need to provide 24hour access. D.2005051 agreed and stated that CRCs should provide “charging stations, cellular network services, water, chairs, deenergization event information representatives, and restrooms.” The Commission also stated that when establishing CRCs, the utilities need to consult with “regional and local governments, deenergization Advisory Board participants, public safety partners, representatives of people and communities with access and functional needs, tribal representatives, senior citizen groups, business owners, community resource organizations, public health and healthcare providers, and wildfire Advisory Board members.” Even though the Commission did not adopt 24hour access to the CRCs, the Commission adopted the hours of 8am to 10pm, which is significantly longer than the 8am to 6pm hours proposed by the utilities. D.2005051, pp.?3536, 3738.TURN Comments (February 19, 2020), pp.?36.TURN Reply Comments (February 26, 2020), pp.?23.D.2005051, pp.?3840.Verified3. Transportation Resilience InfrastructureTURN noted that allowing IOUs to build expensive electric charging infrastructure as a mitigation for deenergization events initiated by the IOUs would create a perverse incentive for the IOUs to perform more frequent and wider deenergization events. Since IOUs earn a return on their ratebase, building more charging infrastructure would result in greater profits. Instead of allowing the utilities to build extensive fast charging networks, the Commission authorized pilot projects to investigate the feasibility of mobile and deployable EV level 3 fast charging. Furthermore, in PD comments, TURN recommended a limit for the pilots of $4?million per project, consistent with the Commission’s Ruling for Priority Review Projects, with a maximum of $10?million per IOU. The Commission agreed with TURN’s recommendation and adopted the limits proposed by TURN. TURN Comments (February 19, 2020), pp.?67.D.2005051, pp.?5456.D.2005051, p.?76.D.2005051, Appendix A, p.?7.Verified4. TransparencyTURN repeatedly stressed the importance of transparency by the utilities regarding its decisionmaking process that ultimately results in a PSPS event. Transparency allows critical stakeholders to anticipate that a PSPS event is likely to occur and begin making preparations. Furthermore, without transparency, the Commission and the public cannot ascertain whether or not the utilities determined that the benefits to the public outweighed the public safety risks before conducting a PSPS event. The Commission agreed and stated that “It is imperative that the IOUs are able to provide insight into the reasoning behind the calling of every deenergization event.” Furthermore, the Commission noted that It is important for the electric IOUs to provide transparency on their respective websites in an effort to ensure that the public is able to understand what efforts are underway to reduce the need to rely deenergization events as a way of mitigating wildfire risk. TURN Comments (September 17, 2019), pp.?56.TURN Reply Comments (October 15, 2019), pp.?23.D.2005051, pp.?7172.VerifiedVerifiedDuplication 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?YesYesb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? YesYesc.If so, provide name of other parties: Mussey Grade Road Alliance, Center for Accessible Technology, Joint Local Governments, and others. Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: TURN coordinated with Cal Advocates, Mussey Grade Road Alliance, Center for Accessible Technology, and other intervenors throughout the proceeding, including conferring on strategy, issue positions, and others. As a general matter, TURN either offered unique positions in this proceeding, or, where our positions overlapped with Cal Advocates or other intervenors, unique analysis in support or opposition of those positions. For example, even though TURN and other intervenors discussed the importance of proper notice to customers, TURN addressed the importance of inlanguage requirements of customer notice. As another example, TURN was also the only party to recommend that the pilots for transportation resilience be limited to $4?million per project and $10?million per utility. The Commission should find that TURN’s participation was efficiently coordinated with the participation of Cal Advocates and other intervenors so as to avoid undue duplication and to ensure that to the extent 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 COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):CPUC Discussiona.Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: TURN’s request for intervenor compensation seeks an award of approximately $62,000 as the reasonable cost of our participation in this proceeding. TURN submits that these costs are reasonable in light of the importance of the issues TURN addressed and the potential benefits to customers. As the Commission and this proceeding recognized, deenergization can have profound effects on the public and can leave communities and essential facilities without power, which brings its own risks and hardships, particularly for vulnerable communities. Thus, it is crucial that appropriate guidelines be adopted for determining when deenergization is appropriate, how and when to provide notification (including to vulnerable population), information that should be provided to first responders and critical facilities, and postevent information that should be provided to the Commission as well as the public. TURN’s participation addressed and influenced these guidelines, which will help customers receive effective notification in advance of a deenergization event, and customers will also benefit from access to transparent information from utilities prior to and after deenergization events. As such, the Commission should treat this compensation request as it has treated similar past requests with regard to the difficulty of establishing specific monetary benefits associated with TURN’s participation (or that of another intervenor). (See, e.g. D.1312027, p.?11 (awarding Sierra Club California intervenor compensation for energy storage policy work in R.1012007); D.1507028, p.7 (awarding TURN intervenor compensation for energy storage policy work in A.1402006 et al.); and D.1606027 (awarding TURN intervenor compensation for energy storage policy work in the first Track of the proceeding.) For these reasons, the Commission should find that TURN's efforts have been productive and the requested amount of compensation is reasonable in light of the benefits achieved through those efforts.Notedb.Reasonableness of hours claimed: This Request for Compensation includes slightly more than 170 hours of TURN’s attorney and expert time, the equivalent of around four weeks of fulltime work for an individual attorney but spanning a 14month period. TURN’s efforts reflected herein resulted in multiple contributions to D.2005051, detailed above, and encompass the preparation of six formal filings by TURN. TURN assigned this proceeding to staff attorney David Cheng. In addition, TURN Managing Attorney Christine Mailloux and TURN Telecommunications Director Regina Costa also provided input into issues relating to telecommunications. Other TURN attorneys and experts also provided valuable contribution, including Thomas Long, Gabriela Sandoval, and Ashley Salas. This request for compensation includes approximately 130 hours of Mr.?Cheng’s time, 18 hours of Ms.?Sandoval’s time, 13 hours of Ms.?Costa’s time, 6 hours of Ms.?Mailloux’s time, 3 hours of Mr.?Long’s time, and 2 hours of Ms.?Salas’s time. TURN suggests that the Commission should find that the number of issues addressed in this phase of the rulemaking, and the time necessary for preparing various pleadings warrant finding that the hours spent were reasonable. However, should the Commission believe that more information is needed or that a different approach to discussing the reasonableness of the requested hours is warranted here, TURN requests the opportunity to supplement this section of the request.Notedc.Allocation of hours by issue: TURN has allocated all of our attorney and expert time by issue area or activity, as is evident on our attached timesheets (Attachment 2) and in Attachment 4, which shows the allocation of TURN’s time included in this request by attorney or expert and issue / activity area. The following codes relate to specific substantive issue and activity areas addressed by TURN. CodeDescriptionAllocationof Time#Work related to multiple substantive issue areas that is not easily allocated to specific issues14.1%CoordWork related to coordination with other parties1.9%CRCWord related to Community Resource Centers2.6%DefWork related to definition and standard nomenclature1.2%GPThe work in this category includes activities associated with general participation in this proceeding28.1%JMWork related to Joint Motion for Emergency Order9.7%NoticeWork related to notice requirements and timelines to customers regarding deenergization event2.5%PDWork related to the Proposed Decision where not easily allocated to specific issue areas7.0%ReportWork related to PostEvent Reports & responses13.3%TelecomWork related to telecommunication infrastructure providers2.6%TRWork related to transportation infrastructure resilience2.2%TransparencyWork related to transparency requirements for the utilities6.7%UpdateWork related to utilities' deenergization preparation updates and progress report2.6%VulnerableWork related to the definition of a vulnerable/AFN customer5.4%NotedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $David Cheng, TURN Attorney201971.25$350D.1911009$24,937.5063.95[1]$350.00[2]$22,382.50David Cheng, TURN Attorney202058.00$375See Comment?1$21,750.0058.00$375.00[3]$21,750.00Thomas Long, Legal Director20190.25$615D.1911015$153.750.25$615.00$153.75Thomas Long, Legal Director20202.25$625Placeholder 2% COLA$1406.252.25$625.00[4]$1,406.25Regina Costa, Telecommunications Director20197.75$320D.1909018$2,480.007.75$320.00$2,480.00Regina Costa, Telecommunications Director20205.5$330Placeholder 2% COLA$1,815.005.5$330.00[5]$1,815.00Ashley Salas, TURN Attorney20192.25$235D.2004022$528.752.25$235.00$528.75Christine Mailloux, TURN Attorney20190.50$495D.1909018$247.500.50$495.00$247.50Christine Mailloux, TURN Attorney20205.25$505Placeholder 2% COLA$2,651.255.25$510.00[6]$2,677.50Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert20198.75$215See Comment?2$1,881.258.75$215.00[7]$1,881.25Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert20209$230See Comment?3$2,070.009.00$230.00[8]$2,070.00Subtotal: $59,921.25Subtotal: $57,392.50[9]INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $Basisfor Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $David Cheng, TURN Attorney20209$187.50? rate of requested 2020 rate$1,687.509$187.50$1,687.50Subtotal: $1,687.50Subtotal: $1,687.50COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1.Copies, Postage & PhoneCopies of filings & mailing costs for filings and phone charges$30.30$30.30Subtotal: $30.30Subtotal: $30.30TOTAL REQUEST: $61,639.05TOTAL AWARD: $59,110.30 *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 explanationThomas LongDecember 1986124776NoChristine MaillouxDecember 1993167918NoDavid ChengJune 2015303794NoAshley SalasDecember 2015308374NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/CommentAttachment 1Certificate of ServiceAttachment 2Timesheets for TURN’s Attorneys and ExpertsAttachment 3TURN Direct Expenses Associated with D.2005051 Attachment 4TURN Hours Allocated by IssueComment 1Hourly Rate for TURN Attorney David Cheng 2020TURN requests an hourly rate in 2020 of $375 for staff attorney David Cheng. This increase reflects Mr.?Cheng’s move from the 57 year experience tier to the 812 year experience tier. Mr.?Cheng joined TURN in 2017 with 8 1/2 years of directly related experience in utility operational and regulatory issues, gained during his employment at San Diego Gas & Electric Company in 20032004 and 20092017. When establishing Mr.?Cheng’s 2017 rate of $310, TURN discounted his number of years performing directly relevant work prior to being admitted to the California bar (6 ? years) by 50% (resulting in 3 ? years), and added to this his time as a licensed attorney (2 years), which put him in the 57 year experience tier in 2017 (this was approved in D.1904035).. The 2020 rate TURN requests for Mr.?Cheng is 7% higher than the rate of $350 approved for Mr.?Cheng’s work in 2019 (D.1911009), when he was in the 57 year experience tier. The Commission has previously authorized comparable increases of 78% for movement to a higher experience tier. See, e.g., D.1703022, issued in A.1411007 et al. (increasing Hayley Goodson’s rate by 7% for her move from the 812 year experience tier into the 13+ year tier); D.1207019, issued in A.1007017 (increasing Matthew Freedman’s rate by 7.7% for his move from the 812 year experience tier into the 13+ year tier). TURN notes that the requested rate is in the lower half of the range adopted in Resolution ALJ357 for attorneys in the 812 year experience tier for 2019 ($350 $410). TURN provides the range of rates for 2019 because the Commission has yet to adopt a COLA for 2020. Comment 2Hourly Rate for TURN Expert Gabriela Sandoval 2019This increase reflects Dr.?Sandoval’s move from the 712 year experience tier to the 13+ year experience tier. Dr.?Sandoval had 13 years of professional experience relevant to her work in this proceeding in 2019.In D.1902017, the Commission adopted an hourly rate of $185 for Dr.?Sandoval in 2017 (when she had 11 years of professional experience). See D.1902017, pp.?2122. TURN has a pending request in P.1803014, filed January 14, 2019, for a 2018 hourly rate of $200 for Dr.?Sandoval, which reflects the 2.3% 2018 COLA authorized in Resolution ALJ352, plus the first 5% step increase in the 712 year experience tier. The 2019 rate TURN requests for Dr.?Sandoval is 7.5% higher than the rate of $200 requested for her work in 2018, when she was in the 712 year experience tier. The Commission has previously authorized comparable increases of 78% for movement to a higher experience tier. See, e.g., D.1703022, issued in A.1411007 et al. (increasing Hayley Goodson’s rate by 7% for her move from the 812 year experience tier into the 13+ year tier); D.1207019, issued in A.1007017 (increasing Matthew Freedman’s rate by 7.7% for his move from the 812 year experience tier into the 13+ year tier). TURN notes that the requested rate is in the bottom of the range adopted in Resolution ALJ357 for experts in the 13+ year experience tier for 2019 ($185 $455). Comment 3Hourly Rate for TURN Expert Gabriela Sandoval 2020For Dr.?Sandoval’s work in 2020, TURN seeks an hourly rate that reflects the (yettobe determined) 2020 COLA of 2%, plus the first of the two “step” increases of 5% that the Commission’s hourly rate resolutions have regularly and predictably provided for. Increasing Dr.?Sandoval’s requested 2019 rate by the first 5% step increase yields a 2020 rate of $225 (when rounded to the nearest $5 increment) before the application of a 2020 COLA. For purposes of this request, TURN is using a placeholder 2020 COLA of 2%, with the expectation that the Commission will modify the award to TURN to reflect the actual 2020 COLA adopted by the Commission. Applying a placeholder 2% COLA increases the rate requested for Dr.?Sandoval in 2020 to $230. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1]We find the hours of General Participation (GP) for David Cheng to be excessive. Per the Intervenor Compensation Program Guide, pg 26, “Time records must not excessively label work as of a “General” issue type (general work on the proceeding),” which GP accounted for 28% of the total hours requested.We apply a 20% reduction for David Cheng’s 2019 and 2020 hours associated to GP for excessive hours. GP accounts for 36.5 hours or 28.3% of David Cheng’s total hours requested. We apply the reduction to the 2019 hours, as a majority of the GP hours claimed were in 2019. The calculations for the reduction are:20% of 36.5 GP hours: 7.3 hours2019 Hours w/ reduction: 71.25 – 7.3 = 63.95[2]David Cheng’s 2019 rate of $350 was verified in D.1911009 and D.2006048[3]Upon verifying Mr.?Cheng’s experience of 812 years, we find Mr.?Cheng’s requested 2020 rate of $375.00 reasonable.[4]Thomas Long’s 2020 rate of $625.00 was verified in D.2103055[5]While verifying Regina Costa’s 2019 rate in D.1909018, we found the 2019 rate of $315, however, a rate of $320.00 was found in D.2005036. Using D.2005036 as the basis, we find the requested 2020 rate of $330.00 acceptable for Regina Costa.[6]After applying the 2.55% 2020 COLA, using Christine Mailloux’s 2019 rate of $495.00 as a basis, brings Christine Mailloux’s 2020 rate to $510.00 after rounding to the nearest $5. [7]We find the 2019 rate of $215.00 for Gabriela Sandoval reasonable. D.2103054 confirms the 2018 rate for Gabriela Sandoval to be $200 at the 712 years of experience range. The 2019 rate of $215.00 is based on the change of range from 712 to 13+.[8]We have applied the 2.55% 2020 COLA to Gabriela Sandoval’s 2019 rate of $215, bringing the 2020 rate to $230.00. [9]TURN requested 16.5 hours contributing to the Joint Motion Issue. While the Ruling on the motion remains undecided, we find the hours reasonable due to the material filing on 4/24/21 in response to the Joint Motion presenting a unique position, qualifying the claimed contribution for Phase 2 of the proceeding. 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?ment Period: Was the 30day comment period waived (see?Rule?14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTThe Utility Reform Network has made a substantial contribution to D.2005051.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 are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $59,110.30.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812.ORDERThe Utility Reform Network shall be awarded $59,110.30.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric), Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc., and Pacific Power, a division of PacifiCorp shall pay The Utility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on their Californiajurisdictional electric revenues for the 2019 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. If such data is unavailable, the most recent electric revenue data shall be used. 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 October?17,?2020 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 August 19, 2021, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJERPresidentDARCIE HOUCKMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMACommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2108031Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D2005051Proceeding(s):R1812005Author:ALJ Stevens, ALJ Poirier, ALJ Kao, ALJ DeAngelisPayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Liberty Utilities (CalPeco Electric), Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc., and Pacific Power, a division of PacifiCorpIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/ DisallowanceThe Utility Reform NetworkAugust 3, 2020$61,639.05$59,110.30.N/ASee CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and AdjustmentsHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedDavidChengAttorney$3502019$350.00DavidChengAttorney$3752020$375.00ThomasLongAttorney$6152019$615.00ThomasLongAttorney$6252020$625.00ReginaCostaExpert$3202019$320.00ReginaCostaExpert$3302020$330.00AshleySalasAttorney$2352019$235.00ChristineMaillouxAttorney$4952019$495.00ChristineMaillouxAttorney$5052020$510.00GabrielaSandovalExpert$2152019$215.00GabrielaSandovalExpert$2302020$230.00(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download