Icomp Claim Form - California



ALJ/RMD/MLC/sf3PROPOSED DECISION Agenda # 16358Decision BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Authority to Implement Optional Pilot Program to Increase Customer Access to Solar Generated Electricity.Application 12-01-008And Related Matters.Application 12-04-020Application 14-01-007DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO THE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES LAW CENTER FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 17-07-007Intervenor: Sustainable Economies Law CenterFor contribution to Decision (D.) 17-07-007Claimed: $2,150.38Awarded: $1,767.38Assigned Commissioner: Michael PickerAssigned ALJ: Michelle Cooke & Regina DeAngelisPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: D. 17-07-007 responds to and grants the Petition for Modification of Decision 15-01-051 by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The Petition (or “PFM”) proposed revisions to the requirement and standard for accepting legal opinions on securities matters for Enhanced Community Renewables projects. In brief, D. 17-07-007 accepted thePFM proposed standards for attorneys and law firms who could provide the required securities opinion, as well as the proposed revisions to the requirements of the opinion itself. Decision 15-01-051 began implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 43 (Wolk, Stats. 2013, ch. 413), which requires that the three large electrical utilities implement the Green Tariff Shared Renewables (GTSR) program comprising of two options: the Green Tariff option and the Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR) option. D. 15-01-051 set forth the initial steps for PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE to administer the Green Tariff and ECR components of the GTSR program, including that ECR projects submit a securities opinion from an “AmLaw 100” law firm. D. 16-05-006 addressed Phase IV of the proceeding, including a discussion of alternatives to the “AmLaw 100” standard, and ultimately called on Commission staff to host a workshop for parties to discuss alternative standards. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:IntervenorCPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference:9/25/2013Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI:12/12/2013Verified (per e-mail ruling from ALJ Clark) 3. Date NOI filed:12/10/2013Verified 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:A.12-01-008Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:1/9/2014Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 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.12-01-008Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:1/9/2014Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D. 17-07-007Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 7/17/2017Verified15. File date of compensation request:9/14/2017Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesAdditional Comments on Part I:#Intervenor’s Comment(s)CPUC DiscussionLine #5 & #9SELC’s showing of financial hardship and customer status is contained in our NOI. (See ALJ ruling on SELC’s Showing of Financial Hardship, issued on January 9, 2014 in A.12-01-008 and A.12-04-020; see also ALJ Richard Clark’s November 12, 2013 electronic-mail ruling, granting SELC’s Motion Requesting Party Status and allowing 30 days from that date for SELC to file a Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation.)VerifiedPART 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 Discussion1. Securities IssuesSELC contributed to the Commission’s consideration of objective standards to evaluate and accept securities opinions from law firms outside of the AmLaw 100. Although there were a large number of intervenors in this consolidated proceeding, only SELC responded to the PFM and to the Proposed Decision (other than the Petitioners), offering a unique perspective to the Commission that emphasized making the securities opinion requirement -- and thus the ECR program overall -- more affordable and accessible to ensure participation of low to moderate income ratepayers and to remove market barriers to small-scale, community-owed, energy projects. Overall, SELC recommended that the Commission should adopt the Petition modifications without Part (iii) law firm insurance minimums to decrease costs for small projects and to not prejudice small law firms.Throughout this proceeding, SELC has been a leading voice drawing attention to the barriers posed by the earlier “AmLaw 100” standard for ECR securities opinion. SELC argued that the Commission’s goal to limit customer and ratepayer risk associated with securities law compliance could be achieved without regulatory and financial hurdles that threaten to disable the ECR program. One alternative to the AmLaw100 standard that SELC advocated for was a standard based on knowledge of, and experience handling, securities issues (reflected in Petition modifications Part (i)). SELC also supported a standard that included a requirement that an attorney offering a securities opinion be licensed and in good standing (reflected in Part (ii)). SELC offered other alternatives, such as exempting nonprofit organizations and small projects from the the securities opinion requirement that were discussed by the Commission but not incorporated in the Final Decision. Decision D. 17-07-007 adopted both Parts (i) and (ii) of the proposed modifications (in addition to Part (iii), which SELC did not support). The Commission agreed with the Petitioners and with SELC that the securities opinion standard should be focused on “the expertise of the lawyer responsible for the issuance of the opinion rather than the law firm’s national ranking.” SELC argued for alternatives regarding malpractice insurance requirements, which the Commission ultimately did not adopt, but which however became part of the Commissions more robust analysis of the issues. A liability insurance requirement was not part of the securities opinion standard in D. 15-01-051, and given that it was part of the Petition’s proposed modifications, SELC’s contribution was vital in leading to the Commissions discussion of the merits and costs of such a requirement. SELC researched liability insurance coverage amounts for different practices in order to inform what impact the PFM’s and the Proposed Decision’s requirements would mean to the ECR program, participants, and projects – particular small-scale projects.Although the Commission grappled with this issue, in the end, the Commission decided not to remove or lower the liability insurance coverage requirement. However, as noted, SELC’s intervention in this regard substantially contributed to the final decision. Furthermore, given that the ECR program is new and initial reports indicate that the program has not yet been successful, we believe that D. 17-07-007’s discussion of participation barriers and costs may still inform future evaluations of the ECR program. In addition, SELC argued that the Commission should adopt the Petition’s proposed securities opinion language requirement modifications in the Enhanced Community Renewables Rider to more appropriately reflect securities law practice. SELC was one of the first parties to identify the problematic nature of some of the language in the ECR rider, and supported changes during the workshop and in response to the PFM. The Commission agreed to amend the ECR rider as suggested by the Petitioners and supported by SELC. SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 2-5.See, e.g., SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 5 (citing SELC Comments on Phase IV Track B Issues, at 5-12 for a through discussion of the shortcomings of the AmLaw 100 standard).SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 3 (supporting Parts (i) and (ii) of the proposed modifications, in the alternative if the Commission were not to eliminate the requirement).See also SELC Comments on Proposed Decision, June 26, 2017, at 5 (supporting modification Parts (i) and (ii) and proposing amendments to Part (iii)).D. 17-07-007, at 7-8 (changing the standard from a list of 100 firms to being based on attorney expertise). See also, id. at 5-7 (discussing and deciding against entirely eliminating the securities opinion requirement); id. at 11 (discussing and deciding against exempting the requirement for certain low-risk projects).SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 3-4 (arguing for the elimination of the insurance requirement).See also SELC Comments on Proposed Decision, June 26, 2017, at 2-5 (arguing, at least, for the reduction of the insurance requirement for ECR-EJ projects under 1MW in size and offering reports and data into the record of project development costs for small-scale projects).D. 17-07-007, at 8-11.SELC Response to Petition for Modification, April 26, 2017, at 5-6.D. 17-07-007, at 12.Intervenor is correct that their response to the petition for modification, filed on April 26, 2017, is cited in the final decision and set out analysis contrary to the position offered by the utilities and other stakeholders. While intervenor’s positions were not adopted, some of them did form part of the Commission’s decision-making process.However, some of the intervenor’s analysis in their response to the petition for modification was out of scope of the issues to be considered in the Decision. Specifically, D.17-07-007 notes that intervenor’s request that the Commission grant exemptions to the securities requirement for developers that are nonprofits, cooperatives or government agencies, or projects otherwise sized under 1MW, exceeds the scope of the issues to be determined in the Decision (D.17-07-007 at 11).Intervenor’s comments on the proposed decision, filed on June 26, 2017, are cited by intervenor as a contribution to the final Decision. However, intervenor’s comments to the proposed decision raised the substantive issue of whether to differentiate the adopted insurance coverage requirement based on project size for the first time, and consequently intervenor’s suggestions were rejected by the Decision on procedural grounds (D.17-07-007). Therefore, while some of the analysis provided by intervenor did contribute to the Commission’s decision-making process, some analysis provided was out of scope or otherwise procedurally improper and therefore did not contribute to the Commission’s decision-making process.Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5):Intervenor’s AssertionCPUC Discussiona.Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) 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:California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA), Clean Coalition, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication:While these parties were intervenors in the proceeding, they did not comment on the PFM or Proposed Decision. SELC’s intervention focused on the securities components of the ECR program. While SELC agreed with parts of the Petition, SELC uniquely argued from a position of seeking to ensure that low and moderate income customers can develop community-based projects to own and control their own sources of renewable energy. Thus SELC’s position was also different than the Petitioners, and SELC’s time was spent on addressing the nuances of those differences, but also supporting parts of the Petition from the perspective of ratepayers whose interests SELC aimed to bring voice to in the proceeding. Therefore, SELC avoided duplication of effort with similarly-positioned parties.VerifiedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:SELC represents customers with a concern for the environment and local economic resilience, especially those interested in supporting ECR programs that spur local ownership and economic innovation that decreases dependence on fossil fuel and maximizes energy independence. These customers, and all California ratepayers within the investor-owned utilities’ service territories, have benefited from SELC’s participation in this proceeding because SELC’s advocacy has helped increase the likelihood that ECR programs spur local economic and environmental benefits. SELC’s participation in this proceeding was directed at policy and environmental matters, and therefore ascertaining direct benefits, in terms of actual dollars, to ratepayers is impossible. The greatest driver of the need to expand renewable energy production in California is to reduce reliance on fossil fuel generation and continue to minimize the state’s contribution to human-induced climate change. The environmental need to expand local renewable energy generation specifically is to reduce the environmental impact of large-scale renewables. It is not feasible to value such environmental benefits.Still, SELC’s written submissions helped to refine the securities opinion requirement and thereby reduce developer and ECR customer costs while still protecting utilities and ratepayers from securities litigation risks. By improving the securities issue component, SELC helpedimprove the affordability the ECR program, thus encouraging more participation. Greater participation should lead to more projects that are close to load and will also reduce transmission costs for utilities and customers. Therefore, the actual costs of SELC’s participation are reasonable compared to the benefits achieved for ratepayers as a result of the participation.CPUC DiscussionIntervenor’s claim that their costs are reasonable is generally true. However, as described below, we modify the compensation awarded to intervenor due to the procedural deficiency of its comments to the proposed decision.b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:SELC limited its hours of work on this proceeding and divided work internally among a small staff team. Subin Varghese was the lead advocate and relied on more senior staff attorneys, Janelle Orsi and Elizabeth Burnett, only for high-level input or information they were better suited to offer based on experience, such as reasonable requirements for liability insurance as part of the securities opinion requirement. SELC has excluded time for other attorneys and staff at SELC who have provided feedback on comments, and SELC has excluded time spent on procedural and administrative time such as filing and serving comments. We also excluded time for Subin Varghese to attend the securities opinion workshop as that was also attended by many parties. Requests for Subin Varghese and Janelle Orsi are based on Decision 16-09-028 Granting SELC Compensation for Contribution to Decision 16-05-006 (September 15, 2016). Although both Ms. Orsi and Mr. Varghese are eligible for a higher rate for 2017, SELC is requesting the lower rate already previously granted. Mr. Varghese became a licensed attorney after the time period covering this request, so his rate is still based on reasonable rates for advocates, not for attorneys. The rate request for Elizabeth Burnett ($445) is also reasonable given her 30 years of experience as an attorney. In addition to the efficiency and costs savings noted above, SELC strived to narrow its participation to areas where it could more likely bring a unique perspective and contribution. Overall, the hours SELC spent during its intervention were limited and reasonable.Intervenor’s hours claimed for compensation are reasonable. However, we adjust the number of hours eligible for compensation, as described below, due to the procedural deficiency of intervenor’s comments on the proposed decision. c. Allocation of hours by issue:As indicated above and in Attachment 2, SELC only intervened on securities issues, so we have not further allocated hours across multiple issues. Securities: 100% of hoursWork to write response to PFM and comments to PD regarding objective standards to evaluate and accept securities opinions from law firms outside of the AmLaw 100.Verified.Specific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Subin Varghese, advocate 20176.5$140D. 16-09-028$910.003.5[1]$145$507.50Janelle Orsi, attorney20170.5$305D. 16-09-028$152.500.5$310$155Elizabeth Burnett, attorney20171$445New Rate Request, see Attachment 3$4451$445$445Subtotal: $ 1,507.50Subtotal: $1,107.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Subin Varghese, advocate20176.8$70Half of rate in D. 16-09-028$476.006.8$72.50$493Elizabeth Burnett, attorney2017.75$222.50Half of new rate request$166.880.75$222.5$166.88Subtotal: $642.88Subtotal: $659.88TOTAL REQUEST: $2,150.38TOTAL AWARD: $1,767.38 *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 explanationSubin Varghese6/23/2017315885NoJanelle Orsi1/9/2008254897NoElizabeth Burnett12/11/1987131293NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/Comment1Certificate of Service2Time Sheets and Allocation by Issue Records3New Hourly Rate Request for Elizabeth BurnettD. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:ItemReasonAdoption of Elizabeth Burnett RateWe accept the proposal of intervenor that Elizabeth Burnett may claim $445/hour for her time given her years of experience as an active member of the California State Bar. The justification form filed by intervenor notes that Ms. Burnett has experience in the areas of securities, entity structure and corporate governance. The decision directly contemplated issues related to these areas of law. Her total experience as an active member of the California State Bar is well over 13 years and therefore justifies her placement in the middle of the range for attorneys with 13 or more years of experience.[1] Intervenor’s compensation claim included three hours of time spent by Subin Varghese preparing comments to the proposed decision. As noted in the final decision (D.17-07-007), the comments of intervenor to the proposed decision were procedurally improper as they raised substantive policy issues for the first time and outside of the stakeholder forum to develop policy recommendations at issue in the proposed decision. Because the Commission generally does not compensate intervenors for time spent preparing procedurally improper advice or analysis that is otherwise out of scope, intervenor’s compensation claim for these three hours is disallowed. Overall awardThe first page of intervenor’s compensation claim stated that it sought $1,705.38 in compensation. This figure appears to have inadvertently excluded the $445 claimed for Elizabeth Burnett’s services in preparing comments to petition for modification. The true amount of intervenor’s original compensation claim, after adding all the hours originally claimed, is $2,150.38. Our final award is for $1,767.38 in compensation for the reasons described above. While this appears to be an increase from the amount originally claimed by intervenor on the first page of its claim form, it is actually a reduction from the true sum claimed of $2,150.38.PART IV:OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTSA. 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 Sustainable Economies Law Center has made a substantial contribution to D.17-07-007.The requested hourly rates for the Sustainable Economies Law Center’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 $1,767.38.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERThe Sustainable Economies Law Center shall be awarded $1,767.38.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall pay the Sustainable Economies Law Center their respective shares of the total 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 November 28, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of the Sustainable Economies Law Center’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated _____________, at San Francisco, California.APPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision:D1707007Proceedings:A1201008, A1204020, and A1401007Authors:ALJ Cooke and ALJ DeAngelisPayer:Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorClaim DateAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceSustainable Economies Law Center (SELC)9/14/2017$1,705.38$1,767.38N/ASee CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments, above.Advocate InformationFirst NameLast NameTypeIntervenorHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedSubinVargheseAdvocateSELC$1402017$145JanelleOrsiAttorneySELC$3052017$310ElizabethBurnettAttorneySELC$4452017$445(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download