Icomp Claim Form - California
ALJ/KJB/mphDate of Issuance 8/17/2017Decision 17-08-009 August 10, 2017BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIn the Matter of Joint Application of Charter Communications, Inc.; Charter Fiberlink CA-CC0, LLC (U6878C); Time Warner Cable Inc.; Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (U6874C); Advance/Newhouse Partnership; Bright House Networks, LLC; and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (U6955C) Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 854 for Expedited Approval of the Transfer of Control of both Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (U6874C) and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (U6955C) to Charter Communications, Inc., and for Expedited Approval of a pro forma transfer of control of Charter Fiberlink CA-CCO, LLC (U6878C).Application 15-07-009(Filed July 2, 2015) DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO CENTER FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY FOR CONTRIBUTION TODECISIONS (D.) 16-12-070 AND D.17-03-028. Intervenor: Center For Accessible Technology (CforAT)For contribution to Decision (D.) D.16-12-070 and D. 17-03-028Claimed: $5,325.25Awarded: $5,436.25Assigned Commissioner: Michael PickerAssigned ALJ: Karl J. BemesderferPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES A. Brief description of Decision: D. 16-12-070 modifies Decision 16-05-007, consistent with the Application for Rehearing filed jointly by ORA and CforAT, to add multiple ordering paragraphs.D.17-03-028 declines to remove the new ordering paragraphs added in D.16-12-070. It also modifies certain scheduling items and confidentiality provisions.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:September 28, 2015Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI:N/A 3. Date NOI filed:October 26, 2015Verified 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.15-07-009Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:November 20, 2015Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):N/A 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.15-07-009Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:November 20, 2015Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):N/A12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.17-03-028Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: March 27, 2017Verified15. File date of compensation request:5/26/17Verified16. 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.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC Discussion1. D.16-12-070: CforAT joined with ORA to request rehearing of D.16-05-007; in the application for rehearing, CforAT and ORA requested the addition of certain ordering paragraphs reflecting commitments made by Applicants during the course of the proceeding. The decision on rehearing agreed that the Commission inadvertently left out seven conditions in D.16-05-007 originally agreed to by New Charter. These seven conditions, voluntarily agreed to by New Charter, were necessary to improve customer service quality issues identified by the Commission. The inclusion of the seven conditions was approved in D.16-12-070.D.16-12-070 at pp. 4-10 and pp. 15-19 ordering modifications to D.16-05-007 reflecting the omitted provisions.Verified2. D.17-03-028: After the Commission issued D.16-12-070 modifying D.16-05-007 by adding seven conditions to the ordering paragraphs, New Charter sought a stay of D.16-12-070, arguing that it had been denied due process. New Charter also sought rehearing on D.16-12-070, arguing that the addition of ordering paragraphs following ORA and CforAT’s application for rehearing was in error because the previous omission of such ordering paragraphs was a deliberate act by the Commission. CforAT and ORA jointly filed a response supporting the Commission’s addition of the ordering paragraphs in D.16-12-070, and noting that removing the seven conditions would cause considerable harm to consumers.The Commission declined to remove the ordering paragraphs added in D.16-12-070, and found that it had correctly modified D.16-05-007 when it issued D.16-12-070. D.17-03-028 at pp. 5-15. The Commission also agreed to modify certain deadlines, consistent with recommendations by CforAT and ORA, to address concerns about compliance deadlines that ran from the closing date of the underlying transaction. Id. at pp. 16-17. VerifiedDuplication 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: Multiple parties in addition to CforAT opposed the proposed merger and/or sought mitigation measures in conjunction with the underlying transaction. However no parties other than CforAT and ORA participated on rehearing.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: In all efforts on rehearing, including the initial Application for Rehearing leading to D.16-12-070 and the subsequent Application for Rehearing leading to D.17-03-028, CforAT worked jointly with ORA. All filings were developed and submitted jointly, with ORA taking the lead role in both efforts. CforAT worked diligently with ORA to ensure that all aspects of the voluntary commitments made by Applicants (including specific commitments regarding accessible communications) were reflected in the Ordering Paragraphs and then preserved. In doing so, CforAT’s work complemented and supplemented the work done by ORA. VerifiedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:While it is difficult to assign a dollar value to the work conducted by CforAT on rehearing, the added ordering paragraphs require action by New Charter that will benefit customers, including specifically our constituency of customers with disabilities (who will benefit from increased accessibility of customer communications as well as items that benefit all consumers). These benefits greatly exceed the modest costs of CforAT’s participation on the rehearing efforts. CPUC DiscussionVerifiedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed:CforAT spent less than 10 hours working with ORA on rehearing issues to first ensure that voluntary commitments made by Applicants were appropriately reflected in the ordering paragraphs of the decision approving the merger and then protecting the addition of these ordering paragraphs. CforAT submits that this time was appropriate and reasonable to provide important benefits of the transaction to consumers. Verifiedc. Allocation of hours by issue:All merits time claimed by CforAT in this compensation request (totaling less than 10 hours) was spent on matters relevant to rehearing. VerifiedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Melissa W Kasnitz 20160.9$455D.16-09-033$409.500.9$455$409.50Melissa W Kasnitz 20178.8$455See comment below$4,0048.8$465$4,092.00Subtotal: $ 4,413.50Subtotal: $4,501.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION**ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Melissa W Kasnitz 20172.9$227.50? 2017 hourly rate, see comment below$659.752.9$232.50$674.25Kathryn E. Woodford20173.6$70? 2017 hourly rate, see comment below$252.003.6$72.50$261.00Subtotal: $911.75Subtotal: $935.25TOTAL REQUEST: $5,325.25TOTAL AWARD: $5,436.25 *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 explanationMelissa W. KasnitzDecember, 1992162679No, but includes periods of inactive status prior to 1997PART 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 FACTCenter for Accessible Technology has made a substantial contribution to D.16-12-070 and D.17-03-028.The requested hourly rates for Center for Accessible Technology’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 $5,436.25CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERCenter for Accessible Technology shall be awarded $5,436.25.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter), Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC), Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (TWCIS), Advance/Newhouse Partnership (ANP), Bright House Networks, LLC (BHN) and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (Bright House) shall pay Center for Accessible Technology their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional telecommunications revenues for the 2016 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 August 09, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Center for Accessible Technology’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 10, 2017, at San Francisco, California.MICHAEL PICKER PresidentCARLA J. PETERMANLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN CommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D1708009Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D1612070, D1703028Proceeding(s):A1507009Author:ALJ BemesderferPayer(s):Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter), Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC), Time Warner Cable Information Services (California), LLC (TWCIS), Advance/Newhouse Partnership (ANP), Bright House Networks, LLC (BHN) and Bright House Networks Information Services (California), LLC (Bright House)Intervenor InformationIntervenorClaim DateAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceCenter for Accessible Technology05/26/17$5,325.25$5,436.25N/AN/AAdvocate InformationFirst NameLast NameTypeIntervenorHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedMelissa KasnitzAttorneyCforAT$4552016$455Melissa KasnitzAttorneyCforAT$4552017$465KateWoodfordAdvocateCforAT$1402017$145(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- exemption claim form for garnishment
- claim form for unclaimed money
- unclaimed property claim form sc
- aflac disability claim form employers
- aflac claim form wellness benefit
- prudential claim form download
- wage claim form california
- garnishment exemption claim form mn
- nationwide claim form to print
- ups claim form download
- unclaimed property claim form washington
- inpatient claim form ub04