California



ALJ/MLC/ek4 Date of Issuance 2/10/2017Decision 17-02-014 February 9, 2017BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking into Policies to Promote a Partnership Framework between Energy Investor Owned Utilities and the Water Sector to Promote Water-Energy Nexus Programs.Rulemaking 13-12-011(Filed December 19, 2013)DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE GREEN POWER INSTITUTE FOR CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 16-12-047Intervenor: The Green Power InstituteFor contribution to Decision: D.16-12-047Claimed: $30,017.00Awarded: $29,191.50Assigned Commissioner: Michael PickerAssigned ALJ: Michelle CookePART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES A. Brief description of Decision: Decision D.16-12-047 updates the water energy nexus cost calculator, and proposes further inquiry and next steps.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 (PHC):February 11, 2014Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed:March 7, 2014Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed?YesShowing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:R.13-12-010 6. Date of ALJ ruling:September 04, 2014 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):D.16-10-015 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status?YesShowing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:R.13-12-01010. Date of ALJ ruling:September 04, 201411. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):D.16-10-01512. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.16-12-047Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 20, 2016Verified15. File date of compensation request:Jan. 4, 2017Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesPART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC DiscussionD.16-12-047 updates the water energy nexus cost calculator, and proposes further inquiry and next steps.(Please note that Attachment 2 includes a list of issue areas, and of GPI Pleadings relevant to this Claim.)Watershed ManagementHealthy functioning watersheds provide multiple benefits to Californians, including clean water supply, wildlife habitat, and recreation. When forested watersheds become stressed less water is available, and the risk of devastating wildfires is increased. Climate change, the recent drought, and insect attacks have led to an unprecedented die-off of trees in forests across the state. Watershed management operations can reduce the risk of wildfires, enhance water supplies in the watershed, and produce residuals that can be converted into renewable energy.The GPI’s participation in the water-energy nexus proceeding was focused on the watershed management issue. The GPI made substantial contributions to D.16-12-047 by providing background information, context, and argument in favor of increased utility participation in watershed management operations. The Decision embraces GPI’s recommendations, and includes watershed management as a key issue to be included in future deliberations in this proceeding.DecisionThe two introductory paragraphs to Section 3 of the Decision, Watershed Management for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction, Optimized Water and Energy Resources, Utility Infrastructure Protection, are taken in whole from the GPI’s 10/21/16 comments in this proceeding. These paragraphs explain the multiple interconnected nexus issues linking watersheds, water, energy, and communications (see Decision, p. 30).“The Green Power Institute believes that the energy focus of watershed-management operations in this proceeding should be expanded to include greater consideration of the residuals that are produced in the course of performing watershed-management operations, and the carbon-cycle implications of various land management options for watershed lands.” [D.16-12-047, pg. 37.]Pleadings“Watershed cleanup improves water capture and storage, water recharge, provides fuel for renewable energy production, and maximizes local water sources. Our aim in providing these Comments on the preliminary scoping memo is to support expanding the scope of the proceeding in response to the ongoing drought, and to introduce improved management of forested watersheds as an activity that should be considered as part of the expanded scope of the water-energy nexus proceeding.” [GPI Comments, 7/15/14, pg. 2.]“The energy-sector focus of the energy-water nexus proceeding relating to watershed management has been the role of healthy watersheds in supplying hydroelectric power. The GPI believes that the energy focus of watershed-management operations should be expanded to include greater consideration of the residuals that are produced in the course of performing watershed-management operations, and the carbon-cycle implications of various land-management options for watershed lands. Removing dead trees and other overgrowth materials from California’s stressed forests protects the remaining forest from losses associated with fire and insect attacks. Land-management operations are expensive, and the use of residuals as biomass fuels can help to underwrite the cost. The use of these kinds of residuals for energy production has a positive effect on the carbon balance by reducing the risk and extent of wildfire damage. For biomass-energy systems the reduction of fire and insect risks in California’s forests can have a quantitatively greater positive effect on net total greenhouse-gas emissions than their displacement of fossil fuel.” [GPI Comments, 10/21/16, pgs. 4-5.]“Given the enormity of the tree-mortality crisis in California today, there is no doubt that each and every means of disposal of removed dead trees add to the amount of forest that can be upgraded and protected. Therefore, biomass energy production can indeed be credited with greenhouse-gas benefits relating to creating more resilient forests in California, by helping to encourage the conduct of the forest-management operations that produce the biomass fuel.” [GPI Comments, 10/21/16, pg. 6.]“Properly managed watersheds maximize water production and retention, control erosion and flooding, and provide improved habitat for fish and wildlife. Watershed-management operations produce large quantities of biomass residuals, especially in areas affected by California’s tree-mortality crisis, and these residuals can be used to generate reliable, schedulable, baseload renewable electricity. Biomass power generators do not require system integration, or exacerbate the extremities of the duck curve. Reducing the risks of wildfire initiation and severity provides major public health and greenhouse-gas benefits for the community.” [GPI Comments, 10/26/16, pgs. 1-2.]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: TURN, UCAN, California Water Assoc., Consumer Federation of California, California Municipal Utilities Assoc., Assoc. of California Water Agencies, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: This proceeding covers a wide variety of topics related to issues at the water-energy nexus. The Green Power Institute coordinated its efforts in this proceeding with other parties. We believe that these measures ensured that we avoided duplication of effort, and added significantly to the outcome of the Commission’s deliberations. Some amount of duplication has occurred in this proceeding on all sides of contentious issues, but Green Power provided our own unique perspective on issues, avoided duplication to the extent possible, and tried to minimize it where it was unavoidable.VerifiedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:The GPI is providing, in Attachment 2, a listing of all of the pleadings we provided in this Proceeding, R.13-12-011, that are relevant to matters covered by this Claim, and a detailed breakdown of GPI staff time spent for work performed that was directly related to our substantial contributions to Decision D.16-12-047.The hours claimed herein in support of Decision D.16-02-047 are reasonable given the scope of the Proceeding, and the strong participation by the GPI. GPI staff maintained detailed contemporaneous time records indicating the number of hours devoted to the matters settled by the Decision in this case. In preparing Attachment 2, Dr. Morris reviewed all of the recorded hours devoted to this proceeding, and included only those that were reasonable and contributory to the underlying tasks. As a result, the GPI submits that all of the hours included in the attachment are reasonable, and should be compensated in full.Dr. Morris is a renewable energy analyst and consultant with more than thirty years of diversified experience and accomplishments in the energy and environmental fields. He is a nationally recognized expert on biomass and renewable energy, climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions analysis, integrated resources planning, and analysis of the environmental impacts of electric power generation. Dr. Morris holds a BA in Natural Science from the University of Pennsylvania, an MSc in Biochemistry from the University of Toronto, and a PhD in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley.Dr. Morris has been actively involved in electric utility restructuring in California throughout the past two decades. He served as editor and facilitator for the Renewables Working Group to the California Public Utilities Commission in 1996 during the original restructuring effort, consultant to the CEC Renewables Program Committee, consultant to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on renewable energy policy during the energy crisis years, and has provided expert testimony in a variety of regulatory and legislative proceedings, as well as in civil litigation.Decision D.98-04-059 states, on pgs. 33-34, “Participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. … At a minimum, when the benefits are intangible, the customer should present information sufficient to justify a Commission finding that the overall benefits of a customer’s participation will exceed a customer’s costs.” This Decision in the water-energy nexus proceeding has the potential to promote better watershed management, and to aid in responding to natural disasters. The value to the ratepayers of the benefits of improved disaster response and improved watershed management in California overwhelms the cost of our participation in this proceeding.CPUC DiscussionVerifiedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed:The GPI made Significant Contributions to Decision D.16-12-047 by providing Commission filings on the various topics that were under consideration in the Proceeding, and are covered by this Claim. Attachment 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the hours that were expended in making our Contributions. The hourly rates and costs claimed are reasonable and consistent with awards to other intervenors with comparable experience and expertise. The Commission should grant the GPI’s claim in its entirety.Verifiedc. Allocation of hours by issue:Forested Watershed Management 100%VerifiedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $ G. Morris 201439.0270D.15-08-02510,53039.0$270$10,530.00 G. Morris 20159.5270D.15-09-0212,5659.5$270$2,565.00 G. Morris 201655.5275D.16-06-04915,26355.5$275$15,262.50 Subtotal: $28,358 Subtotal: $28,357.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $ G. Morris 201612.00137.5? rate for 20161,6506[A]$137.50$825.00 Subtotal: $1,650 Subtotal: $825.00COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmountPostageFor Service (see attachment 2)99 TOTAL REQUEST: $ 30,017TOTAL AWARD: $29,191.50 **We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit their records related to the award and that 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 typically compensated at ? of preparer’s normal hourly rate. C. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:ItemReasonAReduction for intervenor compensation claim preparation hours. For a such a short claim 12 hours is exceedingly inefficient. GPI’s claim preparation hours are halved.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 FACTGPI has made a substantial contribution to D.16-12-047.The requested hourly rates for GPI’s representatives 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 $29,191.50.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERGreen Power Institute shall be awarded $29,191.50.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and Class A Water utilities shall pay Green Power Institute their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional electric, gas, and water 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 March 20, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Green Power Institute’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated February 9, 2017, at San Francisco, California.?????????????????????????????????????????????????? MICHAEL PICKER???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? ????? ??? ?????President????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????CARLA J. PETERMAN??????????????????????????????????????????????????LIANE M. RANDOLPH???????????????????????????????????????????????????MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES??????????????????????????????? ????????????????? CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Commissioners.APPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D1702014Modifies Decision? Contribution Decision(s):D1612047Proceeding(s):R1312011Author:ALJ CookePayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and Class A Water utilitiesIntervenor InformationIntervenorClaim DateAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceGreen Power Institute01/04/17$30,017.00$29,191.50N/AReduced Claim Preparation HoursAdvocate InformationFirst NameLast NameTypeIntervenorHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedGreggMorrisExpertGPI$2702014$270GreggMorrisExpertGPI$2702015$270GreggMorrisExpertGPI$2752016$275(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download