Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?SW9/nd3PROPOSED DECISIONAgenda ID #19754Decision ___________________BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Consider New Approaches to Disconnections and Reconnections to Improve Energy Access and Contain Costs.Rulemaking 1807005DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORKFOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 2006003Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network (“TURN”)For contribution to Decision (D.)?2006003Claimed: $144,325.24Awarded: $144,325.24Assigned Commissioner: Darcie L. HouckAssigned ALJ: Stephanie WangPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA.Brief description of Decision: In D.2006003, the Commission adopted rules and other changes applicable to Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (“SDG&E”), and Southern California Gas Company (“SoCalGas”) that are designed to reduce the number of residential customer disconnections and improve reconnection processes for disconnected customers.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:8/15/2018Verified2.Other specified date for NOI:N/A3.Date NOI filed:9/14/2018Verified4.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: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.2006003Verified14.Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 6/16/2020Verified15.File date of compensation request:8/14/2020Verified16. 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).VerifiedPART 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.Interim RulesTURN urged the Commission to adopt interim protections by keeping disconnections at 2017 levels to prevent further increases in residential disconnections. TURN recommended that the protections should last for the duration of this proceeding, or until targets for reduced disconnections are adopted. TURN further noted that the protections should not be limited to vulnerable customers because SB 598 applies to all residential customers, not just vulnerable customers. Lastly, TURN recommended that SDG&E be given a threemonth grace period to comply with the disconnections target.The Commission agreed and required the IOUs to set a goal of limiting residential disconnections to recorded 2017 levels until reduced disconnection targets are adopted. Furthermore, the Commission agreed with TURN that the protections should not be limited to only vulnerable customers. The Commission also adopted TURN’s recommendation to give SDG&E a threemonth grace period to comply with the disconnections target. D.1812013, pp.?1213.D.1812013, pp.?1718.Verified2.Disconnection PoliciesTURN advocated for various changes to the disconnection policies of the IOUs, such as in the areas below. Disconnection Rate Targets: TURN recommended that an annual sliding disconnection rate be adopted for the IOUs, ending in 3.5% for PG&E, 3% for SDG&E, 4% for SCE, and 2% for SoCalGas by January 1, 2024. TURN further noted that adopting a uniform disconnection rate of 4% across all the utilities would be bad policy and illegal because that would allow both SDG&E an SoCalGas to increase its disconnection rates. The Commission agreed and adopted the annual caps proposed by TURN. Furthermore, the Commission agreed with TURN and declined to adopt a uniform disconnection rate as proposed by SDG&E and SoCalGas. Residential Deposits: TURN noted that reestablishment deposits create an additional barrier to keeping or restoring utility services and therefore cause customers to struggle with bill affordability. Thus, TURN urged the Commission to eliminate reestablishment deposits for CARE, FERA, and Medical Baseline customers. TURN also disputed PG&E’s assertion that it does not disconnect for failure to provide deposits, since payments are applied to oldest debts, and therefore customers could be disconnected for unpaid deposits. The Commission agreed with TURN’s recommendation and eliminated reestablishment deposits for CARE, FERA, and Medical Baseline customers. The Commission went even further and eliminated reestablishment deposits for all customers as well as eliminate establishment deposits. Reconnection Fees: TURN recommended that reconnection fees be eliminated, particularly for CARE and FERA customers. The Commission agreed and eliminated reconnection fees for all customers. D.2006003, p.?31.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?511.D.2006003, p.?34.D.2006003, p.?34.D.2006003, p.?37.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?2124.D.2006003, p.?44.D.2006003, p.?50.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?3031.D.2006003, p.?51.Verified3.Enrollment in Assistance ProgramsTURN recommended that customers be auto enrolled in various Assistance Programs, including REACH, NeighbortoNeighbor, Gas Assistance Fund, Energy Assistance Fund, CARE, and Medical Baseline. While the Commission did not order the IOUs to auto enroll customers, the decision ordered that IOUs shall not disconnect a customer until they have offered to sign the customer up for all applicable benefit programs such as CARE and FERA, offered a 12month payment plan, and shall not disconnect if there is a LIHEAP pledge pending. In addition, the Commission ordered that additional CARE and FERA outreach issues be addressed in A.1911003, but provided guidance that LIHEAP providers should be able to verify over the telephone with the IOUs whether a household is on CARE or FERA. If the household is eligible but not enrolled, the LIHEAP provider can obtain customer consent and assist the household with enrollment via phone with the IOU representative. The LIHEAP provider can also refer eligible customers to sign up for said programs.D.2006003, p.?23.TURN Comments (December 6, 2019), pp.?56.D.2006003, pp.?2627.D.2006003, pp.?8384.Verified4.Benefit of ServiceTURN repeatedly stressed the importance of providing due process for benefit of service related charges. Customers are not given an opportunity to see the investigation report, and there is no process to dispute or appeal the investigation findings. In addition, TURN recommended that any collection for the previous tenant be restricted to the customer whose name appears on that previous bill. Furthermore, TURN argued that minors at the time of usage cannot be held responsible for the charges. After the ALJ issued a ruling with a proposal for modifications to the benefit of service policies, TURN additionally recommended that an appeal process be implemented, and that IOUs be required to provide the customer with a copy of the evidence used to make the determination.The Commission adopted nearly all of TURN’s recommendations. The IOUs are required to identify one of six circumstances before providing customers 30 days to submit proof to disprove that they benefited from prior utility service. Furthermore, the customer must be provided written and verbal information regarding the investigation that was conducted. In addition, no new customer who was under the age of 18 during the period in question shall be required to absorb a benefit of service charge. D.2006003, pp.?5354.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?610.TURN Comments (November 4, 2019), pp.?23.D.2006003, pp.?5657.TURN Comments (December 6, 2019), pp.?12.TURN Comments (December 13, 2019), pp.?12.D.2006003, pp.?6061.Verified5.LIHEAP ImprovementsTURN recommended that the interface for utilityLIHEAP agency be improved, such as a portal, and that communication between the LIHEAP providers and IOUs be improved. Furthermore, TURN recommended that the pledge period be extended so that the broken pledge rate would be decreased. After the ALJ issued a ruling with a proposal for LIHEAP improvements, TURN supported requiring IOUs to implement online pledging for LIHEAP because the IVR system is highly inefficient. The Commission adopted TURN’s recommendations and ordered the IOUs to maximize data sharing with the CSDs and that quarterly meetings be held. Furthermore, the Commission required all pledge periods to be 90 days. The Commission also ordered the IOUs to develop an online pledging portal. D.2006003, pp.?6364.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?1821.D.2006003, p.?70.TURN Comments (December 6, 2019), pp.?23.D.2006003, p.?73.Verified6.Arrearage Management ProgramTURN strongly supported an Arrearage Management Program (“AMP”) because it could provide benefits to public safety, children's education, housing security, physical and mental health, adults' ability to work, and food security. After the ALJ issued a ruling with a proposal for AMP, TURN recommended that to combat the potential for gaming by customers, one of these options should be added: an age of arrears threshold, a requirement that customers have experienced at least one disconnection in the last 12 months, or both, or start the AMP with a first phase for low income customers. Furthermore, TURN noted that the IOUs’ estimate for potential impact of the AMP is overstated and without support, and that adopting TURN’s recommendations would mitigate the concerns raised by the IOUs.The Commission adopted most of TURN’s recommendations and adopted an AMP for CARE and FERA customers. Furthermore, the Commission adopted eligibility requirements of 6 months as a customer and made at least one ontime payment. In addition, a working group was established and coled by TURN, IOUs, and the CCAs D.2006003, p.?89.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?3235.D.2006003, p.?99.TURN Comments (December 6, 2019), pp.?78.D.2006003, p.?102.TURN Comments (December 13, 2019), p.?2.D.2006003, pp.?103106, 109.Verified7.Uncollectible ChargesTURN strongly argued that the ratemaking mechanism for uncollectibles should be modified because to keep uncollectibles below the authorized amount, utilities are incentivized to disconnect as soon as possible and force the customer to make a payment. TURN encouraged the Commission to adopt a balancing account treatment for uncollectibles. Furthermore, IOUs requested that the twoway balancing account be used to track both residential and nonresidential costs. TURN argued that this is inappropriate and that SB 598 only required a reduction for residential disconnections. The Commission agreed that the current accounting practice for uncollectibles means that IOUs are incentivized to keep uncollectibles low. The Commission also adopted TURN’s suggestion of a twoway balancing account to create more transparency and more accurately reflect the actual cost of uncollectibles in rates to be implemented in each utilities GRC. The Commission further agreed with TURN that only residential costs should be tracked in the twoway balancing account. D.2006003, p.?110.TURN Comments (June 14, 2019), pp.?2, 3638.D.2006003, p.?114.TURN Comments (June 1, 2020), p.?4.D.2006003, pp.?113114.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: Center for Accessible Technology, National Consumer Law Center, and others. Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: TURN coordinated with Cal Advocates, Center for Accessible Technology, National Consumer Law Center, 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 addressed the question of disconnection rate caps, TURN was the only party to propose a decreasing scale each year. As another example, TURN was also the only party to recommend and repeatedly stress the importance of modifying the ratemaking treatment for uncollectibles. Both of these unique recommendations by TURN were adopted by the Commission. 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. VerifiedPART 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 $144,000 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 D.2006003 recognized, customers’ access to electric and gas service is critical to economic and social stability and wellbeing (p.?1). The Commission also noted that there are public health impacts in terms of hardship and stress resulting from disconnections, especially among vulnerable populations (pp.?45). Furthermore, the compounding effects of disconnection include disruption of the customer’s normal daily activities (e.g. potentially, the ability to maintain employment,) as well as broad public health and social impacts associated with lack of electric and gas service. (p.?5) Thus, it is crucial that appropriate policies and rules be adopted for disconnections. TURN’s participation addressed and greatly influenced the rules and policies adopted in D.2006003, which will help customers minimize disconnections for nonpayment and be able to access essential utility services. 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.The Commissions finds the costs as reasonable.b.Reasonableness of hours claimed: This Request for Compensation includes slightly more than 400?hours of TURN’s attorney and expert time, the equivalent of around ten weeks of fulltime work for an individual attorney but spanning a 24month period. TURN’s efforts reflected herein resulted in multiple contributions to D.2006003, detailed above, and encompass the preparation of 13 formal filings by TURN. TURN assigned this proceeding to Staff Attorney David Cheng and expert Gabriela Sandoval. Other TURN attorneys and experts also provided valuable contribution, including Hayley Goodson and Mark Toney. This request for compensation includes approximately 244?hours of Mr.?Cheng’s time, 92.5?hours of Ms.?Sandoval’s time, 55?hours of Ms.?Goodson’s time, and 9?hours of Mr.?Toney’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.The Commission finds hours claimed as reasonable.c.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 issues18.6%AMPWork related to Arrearage Management Program4.0%AssistanceWord related to assistance programs and policies (such as LIHEAP)2.0%BenefitWork related to benefit of service investigation and policy2.2%CoordWork related to coordination with other parties2.7%DataWork related to reviewing data and reports from IOUs4.4%DepositsWork related to deposits (amount and policy)1.1%DiscWork related to conducting and reviewing discovery2.7%Ex ParteWork related to ex parte activities0.8%ExtensionWork related to extension request by IOUs to delay implementation of D.20060032.6%GPThe work in this category includes activities associated with general participation in this proceeding13.3%ImplementWork related to implementation of D.20060031.4%InterimWork related to interim disconnection protections1.9%PDWork related to the Proposed Decision where not easily allocated to specific issue areas5.8%PolicyWork related to disconnection policies, including notice, payment plans, protections for vulnerable customers, and others9.3%UncollectibleWork related to tracking and recovery of uncollectibles1.1%WGWork related to preparing for and participating in working groups4.9%WorkshopWork and time related to preparing for and attending workshops21.4%The Commission finds allocation of hours by issue as reasonable.Specific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $David Cheng, TURN Attorney201865.5$335D.1904035$21,942.5065.5$335$21,942.50David Cheng, TURN Attorney2019129.25$350D.1911009$45,237.50129.25$350$45,237.50David Cheng, TURN Attorney202049.5$375See Comment?1$18,562.5049.5$375$18,562.50Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert201828.00$200See Comment?2$5,600.0028.00$200$5,600.00Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert201945.75$215See Comment?3$9,836.2545.75$215$9,836.25Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert202018.75$230See Comment?4$4,312.5018.75$230$4,312.50Hayley Goodson, TURN Attorney20187.75$435D.1804020$3,371.257.75$435$3,371.25Hayley Goodson, TURN Attorney201946.75$445D.1911009$20,803.7546.75$445$20,803.75Mark Toney, TURN Executive Director20189.00$300D.1909019$2,700.009.00$300$2,700.00Subtotal: $132,366.25Subtotal: $132,366.25OTHER FEESDescribe here what OTHER HOURLY FEES you are Claiming (paralegal, travel **, etc.):ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Stephen Green, TURN Legal Assistant20191.25$120? of 2019 rate for paralegal$150.001.25$120$150.00David Cheng, TURN Attorney201814.00$167.50? of 2018 rate for travel$2,345.0014.00$167.50$2,345.00David Cheng, TURN Attorney201914.00$175? of 2019 rate for travel$2,450.0014.00$175$2,450.00Mark Toney, TURN Executive Director20186$150? of 2018 rate for travel$900.006$150$900.00Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert20188.75$100? of 2018 rate for travel$875.008.75$100$875.00Gabriela Sandoval, TURN Expert20193$107.50? of 2019 rate for travel$322.503$107.50$322.50Subtotal: $7,042.50Subtotal: $7,042.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $David Cheng, TURN Attorney20180.75$167.50? of 2018 rate$125.630.75$167.50$125.63David Cheng, TURN Attorney202012.50$187.50? of requested 2020 rate$2,343.7512.50$187.50$2,343.75Hayley Goodson, TURN Attorney20180.50$217.50? of 2018 rate$108.750.50$217.50$108.75Subtotal: $2,578.13Subtotal: $2,578.13COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1.Copies, Postage & PhoneCopies of filings & mailing costs for filings and phone charges$37.29$37.292.Travel ExpensesTravel and lodging for attorney & expert (to workshops and CPUC)$2,120.07$2,120.073.ParkingAirport & other parking for attorney and expert travel$181.00$181.00Subtotal: $2,338.36Subtotal: $2,338.36TOTAL REQUEST: $144,325.24TOTAL AWARD: $144,325.24 *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 explanationHayley GoodsonDecember 2003228535NoDavid ChengJune 2015303794NoAttachments 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.2006003 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 2018In 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. Comment 3Hourly 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 4Hourly 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. 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.2006003.The requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform Network’s representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $144,325.24.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 $144,325.24.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall pay The Utility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on their Californiajurisdictional electric and gas revenues for the 2018 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. If such data is unavailable, the most recent electric and gas 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 28, 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 _____________, at San Francisco, California.APPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D2006003Proceeding(s):R1807005Author:ALJ WangPayer(s):Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric.Intervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmountRequestedAmountAwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceThe Utility Reform NetworkAugust 14, 2020$144,325.24$144,325.24N/AN/AHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedDavidChengAttorney$3352018$335DavidChengAttorney$3502019$350DavidChengAttorney$3752020$375GabrielaSandovalExpert$2002018$200GabrielaSandovalExpert$2152019$215GabrielaSandovalExpert$2302020$230HayleyGoodsonAttorney$4352018$435HayleyGoodsonAttorney$4452019$445MarkToneyExpert$3002018$300(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download