California

?JF2/nd3Date of Issuance: 6/3/2020Decision 20-05-050 May 28, 2020BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Develop an Electricity Integrated Resource Planning Framework and to Coordinate and Refine LongTerm Procurement Planning Requirements.Rulemaking 1602007DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION (D.) 1904040, D.1802018 AND D.1606042Intervenor: The Utility Reform NetworkFor contribution to Decision (D.) 1904040, D.1802018, D.1606042, and participation in Utility Procurement Review GroupsClaimed: $584,227.37Awarded: $584,227.37Assigned Commissioner: Liane M. RandolphAssigned ALJ: Julie A. FitchPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: Decision 1904040Evaluates the first round of individual integrated resource plan filings by all load serving entities and approves or certifies 20 plans. Adopts a preferred system portfolio and determines that options for additional procurement should be considered in a subsequent phase of the proceeding.Decision 1802018Sets requirements for all load serving entities to file Integrated Resource Plans pursuant to Section 454.51 and 454.52, adopts a twoyear planning cycle, and sets Greenhouse Gas emissions targets.D.1606042 (R.1312010)Closes the 2014 Long Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceeding (R.1312010) and transfers remaining issues regarding Energy Division Staff’s proposed modeling methodologies to the 2016 LTPP proceeding (R.1602007).Participation in Procurement Review GroupsTURN’s participation since May 2012 in the Procurement Review Groups and Cost Allocation Mechanism Groups of Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric.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:April 26, 2016Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI:See Comment #1Verified 3. Date NOI filed:May 24, 2016Verified 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.1503005Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:August 3, 2015Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):See Comment #1Verified 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.1503005Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:August 3, 2015Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):See Comment #1Verified12 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§?1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.1904040Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: May 1, 2019Verified15. File date of compensation request:June 28, 2019Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesAdditional Comments on Part I: #Intervenor’s Comment(s)CPUC Discussion1In this request, TURN requests compensation for work performed in R.1602007, R.1312010 (for issues resolved in R.1602007), and for participation in the Procurement Review Groups of the three major investorowned utilities since May of 2012. Eligibility to claim compensation for work performed in R.1312010 and R.1602007TURN’s current eligibility to claim compensation for issues addressed in R.1602007 began with its NOI submission in R.1203014 which served as the basis for its eligibility in R.1312010 and for issues transferred to R.1602007.TURN filed its NOI in R.1203014 on May 17, 2012. In D.1506012, the Commission found TURN eligible to claim compensation in R.1203014 and approved TURN’s request for compensation.TURN’s eligibility to seek compensation in R.1312010 based on eligibility originally established in R.1203014. In the Order Instituting Rulemaking 1312010, the Commission stated “parties who were previously found eligible to request compensation in R.1203014 shall remain eligible in this proceeding and do not need to file an NOI within 30 days, provided there are no material changes to their bylaws or financial status.” (OIR 1312010, page 21, Ordering Paragraph 10). Consistent with this direction, TURN did not file a separate NOI in R.1312010.In D.1606042 (ordering Paragraph 3), the Commission transferred work relating to the consideration of modeling methodologies from R.1310010 to R.1602007. In that Decision, the Commission concluded that “eligible parties may request intervenor compensation in R.1602007 for contributions to the development of modeling methodologies and assumptions made in R.1312010.” (D.1606042, Conclusion of Law 3, p. 5.) Pursuant to that direction, TURN’s work related “to the development of modeling methodologies and assumptions made in R.1312010” is included in TURN’s current claim in R.1602007.In R.1602007, TURN filed its original NOI on May 24, 2016. On August 15, 2018, ALJ Fitch issued a ruling clarifying that parties may submit a new or revised notice of intent to seek intervenor compensation no later than September 7, 2018. Pursuant to that ruling, TURN submitted a revised notice of intent on September 7, 2018 clarifying that TURN intends to address issues identified in the May 14, 2018 scoping memo including the evaluation of individual and collective IRP filings. Eligibility to claim compensation for participation in Procurement Review GroupsTURN’s eligibility to claim compensation for Procurement Review Group (PRG) work since May of 2012 is based on its ongoing eligibility in relevant procurement and planning dockets such as R.1203014, R.1312010 and R.1602007. TURN was also found eligible to seek compensation in other relevant proceedings active throughout this period involving renewable procurement (R.1105005, R.1502020, R.1807003) and Resource Adequacy (R.1110023, R.1410010, R.1709020).TURN has maintained continuous eligibility to seek compensation in proceedings that directly relate to PRG work since the initiation of R.1203014. The submission of a single request for PRG work over this entire period is consistent with the Commission’s finding in D.1211050 that dispersing PRGrelated requests amongst numerous proceedings would be “extremely inefficient.” (page 5)In approving TURN’s last compensation request for PRG work, the Commission noted that PRGs are not “strictly speaking” a phase of any particular proceeding (D.1211050) including any specific proceeding addressing longterm resource planning and renewable procurement.?Some?of the?issues raised in PRG meetings?implicate procurement activities considered in different dockets, and some?are not expressly within the scope of issues to be considered in any specific proceeding (such as R.1203014, R.1312010 and R.1602007). The Commission has never established any requirement that an intervenor must file a request for compensation relating to PRG participation in a particular proceeding. Moreover, the Commission has approved compensation for time devoted to PRG participation occurring prior to the initiation of the proceeding in which the request was filed. For example, in D.1103019 (in R.1005006), the Commission awarded compensation to L. Jan Reid for PRG participation between 2008 and 2010 and found him eligible based on the submission of an NOI on August 9, 2010 in R.1005006 noting that “we have not established timelines for requesting intervenor compensation for this work, and we find this request timely.” (D.1103019, page 6)TURN’s request is consistent with the Commission’s practice of permitting intervenor compensation requests for PRG participation to be filed in a longterm resource planning docket even when it includes work occurring prior to the initiation of that specific proceeding. Because TURN is eligible to file for compensation in R.1602007 (along with R.1203014 and R.1312010), the Commission should find that TURN’s decision to seek compensation in this docket for PRG participation since May of 2012 is reasonable.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. Procurement Review Group (PRG) and Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM) Group participationTURN participated in the Procurement Review Groups (PRGs) and Cost Allocation Mechanism (CAM) groups for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). This request covers time spent since May 2, 2012 and continuing until June of 2019.TURN made a substantial contribution to the PRG and CAM processes through its participation. This participation satisfies the standards previously adopted by the Commission. TURN addresses the requirements for compensation in PRG/CAM processes in Attachment 5 and 6 to this compensation request.See Attachments 5 and 6 to this compensation requestD.0711024D.1103019D.1211050Verified2. Modeling / R.1312010TURN prepared a over a dozen pleadings and three sets of testimony in response to a large number of Commissioner and ALJ Rulings addressing modeling methodologies and assumptions.Some of TURN’s contributions are evident in Rulings issued in that proceeding, such as the March 25, 2015 Ruling finding that there is no need for additional flexible capacity. However, the two primary issues – the use of modeling to forecast resource needs for renewable integration, and the calculation of a renewable integration cost adder – were deferred by D.1606042 to the IRP Rulemaking. TURN details the work and contributions to the Rulings issued in R.1312010 in Attachment 3. See Attachment 3See Attachment 3Verified3. MODEL / WECCWIDE ANALYSIS OF GHG EMISSIONSTURN urged the Commission to model GHG emissions on a regional basis rather than limiting any analysis to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) system.The Commission agreed to model GHG emissions associated with the Preferred System Plan on a WECCwide basis.TURN comments on production cost modeling, R.1602007, October 10, 2018, page 2Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Finalizing Production Cost Modeling Approach and Schedule for Preferred System Plan Development, R.1602007, Nov. 15, 2018, page 7Verified4. MODEL / PACIFIC NORTHWEST HYDRO TURN suggested adding modeling sensitivities to the Preferred System Plan to assess the regional GHG impacts if northwest hydroelectric generation assumed for import into CAISO is instead retained for use outside the state.The Commission agreed to consider improvements to the Reference System Plan that would address GHGs from northwest hydroelectric imports and “consider scenarios or sensitivities on Northwest hydro delivering to CAISO or the Northwest.” The Commission also held that the Clean Net Short Calculator should be revised to more clearly distinguish between instate and imported hydro resources.TURN comments on production cost modeling, R.1602007, October 10, 2018, pages 12Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Finalizing Production Cost Modeling Approach and Schedule for Preferred System Plan Development, R.1602007, Nov. 15, 2018, page 12D.1904040, pages 9192.Verified5. MODEL / GENERIC RESOURCESTURN expressed concern about the extensive utilization in some LSE plans of unspecified and generic capacity and energy. TURN urged the Commission to consider whether the aggregated quantities of unspecified resources are consistent with expected available and uncommitted resources. The Commission agreed with this concern, noting that “TURN recommended that the Commission staff provide a summary of the amount of “unspecified” energy and capacity included in the 2030 LSE portfolios to assess whether such aggregate levels of unspecified capacity and energy will actually be available to LSEs. We intend to do this in the next IRP cycle, and will also consider placing limitations on the amount of unspecified energy and capacity that each LSE may include in its plan”.TURN comments on select questions posed by the ALJ Ruling regarding the Proposal for Implementing Integrated Resource Planning, June 26, 2017, page 14.TURN comments on LSE IRPs, September 12, 2018, pages 910, 1213.TURN Comments on Proposed Preferred System Portfolio and Transmission Planning Process Recommendations, January 31, 2019, page 4TURN Opening Comments on Proposed Decision of ALJ Fitch Adopting Preferred System Portfolio and Plan for 20172018 Integrated Resource Plan Cycle, April 8, 2019, page 1D.1904040, pages 152153Verified6. GHGs / GHG accountingTURN strongly urged that the Commission decline to treat PCC2 and PCC3 resources as “zero GHG”. TURN also expressed significant concerns about the potential for imported zero GHG resources to result in no net GHG reductions.The Commission declined to count PCC2 or PCC3 resources as “GHGfree” for purposes of IRP modeling consistent with concerns raised by TURN.TURN urged the Commission to ensure that the Clean Net Short GHG emissions methodology does not conflict with the Power Source Disclosure Program approach required pursuant to AB 1110.The Commission adopted the Clean Net Short methodology but clarified that this approach should not interfere with the Power Source Disclosure Program administered by the California Energy Commission pursuant to AB 1110. Specifically, the Commission committed to address questions raised by TURN with respect to the accounting treatment of RECs.TURN Informal comments on Implementing GHG Planning Targets, November 30, 2016TURN comments on Proposed Reference System Plan, October 26, 2017, pages 1315.TURN opening comments on GHG Emissions Accounting Methods, April 20, 2018ALJ Ruling Finalizing GHG Emissions Accounting Methods, May 25, 2018, pages 1315.TURN information reply comments on Implementing GHG Planning Targets, December 7, 2016, pages 35TURN opening comments on Proposed Decision of Commissioner Randolph, January 17, 2018, pages 89.D.1802018, page 157.Verified7. PSP / Rejection of Hybrid Conforming PlanTURN urged the Commission to reject the staff proposal to use the Hybrid Conforming Plan (HCP) as the Preferred System Plan because it fails to achieve the GHG reduction goals and does not achieve the Renewable Portfolio Standard targets in state law.The Commission declined to make the HCP a preferred system portfolio in light if its failure to meet GHG reduction targets and the fact that it “does not appear to come close to achieving the 60% RPS requirements in 2030.”TURN Comments on proposed preferred system portfolio, January 31, 2019, pages 12TURN Reply Comments on proposed preferred system portfolio, February 11, 2019TURN Opening Comments on Proposed Decision of ALJ Fitch, April 8, 2019D.1904040, pages 106107.Verified8. PROCURE / Development of procurement obligations and mechanismsTURN urged the Commission to direct additional procurement of new resources through the IRP process that may not be achieved absent collective action. TURN also suggested that the Commission should use any “procurement track” to establish specific obligations for LSEs. TURN proposed that any procurement track consider the development of a backstop procurement process to execute unsatisfied resource commitments needed to meet clean energy, reliability or system optimization needs.The Commission agreed with TURN that the IRP process is “the only venue” for addressing reliability, cost and operational needs through 2030. The Commission agreed to establish a procurement track with the “first purpose” focused “as suggested by TURN” on the development of a backstop mechanism and the second purpose being the identification of procurement needs that may require collective action. The final decision contains several important clarifications, made in response to TURN’s comments, relating to the development of a backstop procurement mechanism and the identification of procurement that may require collective action.TURN comments on Energy Division Staff Proposal, June 28, 2017, pages 1819TURN reply comments, July 12, 2017, pages 24TURN comments on LSE IRPs, September 12, 2018, page 4.TURN comments on policy issues and options related to reliability, December 20, 2018, pages 25.TURN Comments on proposed preferred system portfolio, January 31, 2019, page 6.TURN opening comments on Proposed Decision of ALJ Fitch, April 8, 2019, pages 13.D.1904040, pages 131133, 139140, 159.Verified9. Resource ShufflingTURN urged the Commission to be wary of the likely reliance by LSEs to meet GHG reduction targets by procuring from existing zero GHG resources located outside the state. TURN pointed out that this procurement may have no impact on overall GHG emissions in the Western region and would not serve the goals of the IRP program. TURN also asked the Commission to assess the comparative impact of adding new GHGfree resources on systemwide emissions. Finally, TURN urged the Commission to adopt a more specific definition of resource shuffling.The Commission agreed with TURN’s concerns over the potential for LSEs to engage in resource or contract shuffling with outofstate zero GHG resources otherwise serving loads outside the state. In response to TURN’s concerns, the Commission “put LSEs on notice that we will be paying attention to these sorts of contracts and arrangements in individual plans, and emphasize that the purpose of this IRP process is to develop new resources that result in actual GHG reductions associated with serving California electric load, not just contracts that result in fewer GHG emissions on paper only.”The Commission subsequently agreed that “we should be concerned” about excessive reliance on imports of zero GHG resources, noted TURN’s positions, and agreed to explore the issue of resource shuffling in the 20192020 cycle.TURN comments on Preliminary Scoping Memo, March 21, 2016, page 4TURN comments on Questions posed by ALJ Ruling, June 26, 2017, pages 3, 6, 9TURN comments on Proposed Reference System Plan, October 26, 2017, pages 1, 1213.TURN reply comments on proposed Reference System Plan, November 9, 2017, page 2TURN comments on Proposed Preferred System Portfolio, January 31, 2019, page 4.TURN reply comments on Proposed Preferred System Portfolio, February 11, 2019, pages 2, 47.D.1802018, page 159.D.1904040, pages 100, 133, 154.Verified10. Enforcement and Authority (ENFORCE)TURN urged the Commission to clarify its authority to engage in meaningful oversight of LSE plans and enforce requirements under the provisions of §454.51 and §454.52. The Commission agreed with TURN and rejected claims by ESPs and CCAs made in comments on the PD that the Commission does not have authority to approve or deny filed IRP plans. TURN urged the Commission to modify the Proposed Decision by clarifying its enforcement authority and committing to the development of specific financial penalties for noncompliance. The final decision modifies the PD and agrees to move forward with a citation program to address remedies in the event that LSEs fail to submit IRP plans. TURN information reply comments on Implementing GHG Planning Targets, December 7, 2016, pages 12.TURN opening comments on Proposed Decision of Commissioner Randolph, January 17, 2018, pages 12D.1802018, page 158.TURN opening comments on ALJ Fitch PD, April 8, 2019, pages 45D.1904040, pages 83, 150151, 162.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?YYesb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? YYesc.If so, provide name of other parties: Sierra Club, Greenlining Institute, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, Utility Consumers Action Network.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: For work relating to work in R.1312010 and R.1602007, TURN coordinated with other intervenors throughout the proceeding as appropriate. However, the extremely large number of active parties in this proceeding meant that extensive efforts to coordinate on all issues would have required a substantial investment of time by TURN’s attorneys and experts. TURN is mindful not to devote excessive time to the process of coordination if this coordination would yield little, or no, net savings of time devoted to the proceeding itself. Furthermore, participation in these two dockets involved significant numbers of workshops that required attendance by all active parties.TURN made significant unique investments of time in Greenhouse Gas accounting issues, resource shuffling, procurement and certain modeling concerns. In each of these areas, TURN presented a unique viewpoint and took reasonable efforts to avoid duplicating factual, policy and logical arguments offered by other parties. To the extent that duplication occurred, it was unavoidable due to the large number of parties in the case and a need to ensure that TURN presented a comprehensive position on each of the issues it addressed.For participation in Procurement Review Groups, TURN addresses the issue of duplication in Attachment 5.VerifiedPART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: As demonstrated in the substantial contribution section, TURN assisted the Commission on a number of issues across two major longterm resource planning proceedings spanning 8 calendar years. Since neither rulemaking addressed specific requests for cost recovery by Investor Owned Utilities, none of the decisions identified in this request include authorization to recover any particular revenue requirements. Therefore, it is not possible to calculate a precise amount of ratepayer savings that will be realized through TURN’s involvement. TURN’s participation in R.1312010 did help the Commission to find that there was insufficient evidence to authorize any procurement of additional flexible or system capacity and justified the termination of Phase 1a. That outcome saved ratepayers costs associated with unnecessary procurement. The remainder of TURN’s work on modeling issues in the subsequent years assisted in the understanding of renewable integration costs and the need for reliability resources.TURN’s work in R.1602007 was designed to ensure that the first cycle of the newly created Integrated Resource Planning process authorized pursuant to SB 350 yielded useful results. The success of this program is critical to preserving system and local reliability, preventing skyrocketing market prices, and meeting the state’s very ambitious clean energy and climate goals at least cost. TURN’s efforts were focused on the development of structures, protocols and methodologies to operationalize these objectives. Moreover, TURN’s work on the development of enforceable objectives was designed to ensure that the IRP process achieves realworld results (rather than just accounting outcomes). TURN’s participation led to a greater recognition of the challenges of converting planning goals into procurement directives and should lead to improved outcomes in the upcoming IRP cycle. Moreover, TURN’s advocacy for a procurement track, and a backstop mechanism, was reflected in the Commission’s resolution of the most recent phase of the proceeding.The benefits of TURN’s participation in the Procurement Review Groups of the three Investor Owned Utilities are addressed in Attachment 5.Given the magnitude of costs at stake under the IRP programs, the benefits produced by TURN’s substantial contributions should be found to exceed the cost of TURN’s participation in the proceeding. TURN’s claim should therefore be found to be reasonable.Verifiedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed: Procurement Review GroupsThe reasonableness of the hours TURN devoted to participation in Procurement Review Groups is addressed in Attachment 5.Hours in R.1602007TURN requests compensation for a total of 184.5 hours of attorney time and 492.75 hours of expert time in R.1602007. The significant amount of time needed to participate in this proceeding was necessary to respond to a series of rulings and staff proposals, to participate in large number of workshops, and to review and comment on the Integrated Resource Plans of all load serving entities regulated by the Commission. TURN submitted 25 separate filings in this proceeding on an array of issues between 2016 and 2019.TURN’s 25 submissions included both informal and formal comments responding to a series of rulings and staff proposals. These filings were necessary to actively participate in the proceeding and ensure that positions were addressed throughout various phases of the proceeding. TURN’s expert also participated in the Modeling Advisory Group convened by the Commission to review modeling assumptions and methodologies. The Commission should find that this level of participation was reasonable for any active participant in the proceeding.Hours in R.1312010TURN requests compensation for a total of 121 hours of attorney time and 460 hours of expert time devoted to the various modeling issues addressed in R.1312010 which were deferred by the Commission to R.1602007. This significant amount of time was necessary to address the complex issues related to modeling the need for both system and flexible capacities to ensure electric reliability.TURN attorneys and experts submitted three sets of testimonies and over a dozen other pleadings, primarily during the twoyear period 20142015, in response to numerous Rulings requesting comments and testimonies on a variety of issues. Pursuant to the directive in D.1606042 (Conclusion of Law No. 3), TURN seeks compensation for all of the time and expenses devoted to time incurred on certain issues in R.1312010 (that were transferred to R.1602007) in this compensation request. See Attachment 3 for additional details.Staffing in R.1312010 and R.1602007Most of TURN’s work performed in R.1312010 was done by attorney Marcel Hawiger and expert consultant Kevin Woodruff. TURN has reviewed the hours requested for compensation and believes that this amount of time was reasonable and necessary in order to participate meaningfully and effectively in this proceeding.Most of TURN’s work performed in R.1602007 was done by attorney Matthew Freedman and expert consultant Kevin Woodruff. TURN has reviewed the hours requested for compensation and believes that this amount of time was reasonable and necessary in order to participate meaningfully and effectively in this proceeding.TURN also relied upon the assistance of TURN attorney Elise Torres to substitute for Marcel Hawiger in R.1312010 during a period when he was not available to participate in the proceeding. Finally, TURN received some assistance from energy analyst Eric Borden who testifies on behalf of TURN in a wide range of proceedings. Attorney Marcel HawigerMr.?Hawiger has been a staff attorney with TURN since 1998. Mr.?Hawiger has been the lead attorney on numerous proceedings, including general rate cases, electric and gas procurement cases, cases addressing demandside management programs and policies, and various applications for utility infrastructure investments. Mr.?Hawiger was the lead attorney in R.1312010. Mr.?Hawiger attended all necessary hearings and meetings and helped draft approximately ten pleadings, as shown in Attachment 3. Mr.?Hawiger devoted approximately 107 hours to work in that proceeding and an additional 13.75 hours in R.1602007, some of which involved issues carried over from R.1312010.Attorney Matthew FreedmanMr.?Freedman has been a staff attorney with TURN since 2000. He has served as the lead attorney on numerous proceedings including renewable resource procurement dockets and longterm resource planning issues. Mr.?Freedman was the lead attorney in R.1602007. He attended a number of workshops, provided guidance to Kevin Woodruff, and assisted in the drafting of approximately 25 informal and formal filings. Mr.?Freedman devoted 171 hours to R.1602007 that are being claimed in this request.Kevin WoodruffTURN retained Mr.?Kevin Woodruff as an expert witness in both proceedings. Mr.?Woodruff has consulted for TURN for over fifteen years, working on conventional procurement, resource adequacy, renewable energy and wholesale market issues. As TURN’s longstanding expert on resource planning issues who has participated in many procurement planning dockets at the Commission, Mr.?Woodruff was critical to TURN’s participation in this case.In R.1312010, Mr.?Woodruff submitted three volumes of expert testimony in Phase 1A of this proceeding. In Phase 1B, Mr.?Woodruff participated in working group meetings to develop consensus regarding various technical parameters associated with reliability modeling for flexible capacity and renewable integration. Mr.?Woodruff was the lead author on most of the substantive comments submitted in the proceeding.In R.1602007, Mr.?Woodruff participated in the Modeling Advisory Group, attended meetings and webinars focusing on the development of the modeling scenarios and the reference system plan, and was the lead drafter for many sections of TURN’s formal and informal comments. Mr.?Woodruff devoted approximately 491 hours to work in the proceeding being claimed in this request.Costs not requestedConsistent with the guidance provided by the Commission, TURN has omitted over 80 hours and expenses associated with travel by Kevin Woodruff from Sacramento (his place of business) to San Francisco to attend CPUC workshops, meetings with parties, and Procurement Review Group inperson meetings. Although TURN is required to pay Mr.?Woodruff for travel time and expenses, none of these costs are included in this compensation pensation Request?TURN’s request also includes 39 hours devoted to the preparation of compensationrelated filings. This figure is somewhat higher than the number of hours we customarily devote to requests for compensation. However, preparing this request was extraordinarily time consuming as it covers work over eight calendar years and two Commission proceedings, includes approximately 40 informal and formal filings by TURN and required TURN to comply with the very exhaustive requirements governing requests relating to participation in Procurement Review Groups (which include identifying more than 400 meetings that TURN representatives attended since 2012). This request covers over 2000 hours of work by TURN attorneys and consultants. Given the unusual amount of work associated with this request, TURN submits that 39 hours of time should be found to be wholly reasonable.Verifiedc. Allocation of hours by issue: TURN uses a combination of activity and issue codes when itemizing the hourly work performed by attorneys and consultants. Some work is fundamental to active participation in a Commission proceeding, and may not be allocable by issue and/or the amount of time required may not vary by the number of issues. Examples of these tasks include reviewing other parties’ testimony and filings, reviewing the proposed and any alternate decision; attending prehearing conferences and ex parte meetings; and preparing compensation filings. TURN uses the activity code “GP” to represent such general participation time that is not allocable by issue. For hours incurred in R.1312010, TURN provides an explanation for the basis for compensation in Attachment 3.For work related to the PRG/CAM groups, TURN provides and explains the relevant allocation codes in Attachment 5.TURN used the following issue/activity codes:General (GP) (53.5 hours, 4% of total) General work necessary for participation which does not necessarily vary with the number of issues. Covers general work in both R.1312010 and R.1602007.Assumptions and Scenarios (A&S) / R.1312010 (36.75 hours, 3% of total) Assumptions and scenarios used for modeling longterm procurement need and the contribution of different resources.Reliability and Renewable integration modeling (Ren Int, Model) / R.1312010 (475.5 hours, 40% of total) Modeling related to the future need of flexible resources for reliability and renewable integration.Interim variable integration cost adder (IVICA) / R.1312010 (12.25 hours, 1% of total) Modeling to develop the appropriate value of an adder to reflect the integration costs for renewable generation resources.Phase 1B (1B) / R.1312010 (12.25 hours, 1% of total) Other issues relevant to Phase 1B scoping for modeling.Coordination (Coord) (4.75 hours, <1% of total), Coordinating with other parties to prevent unnecessary duplication in R.1312010 and R.1602007.Workshops (Work) / R.1602007 (83.5 hours, 7% of total) – Preparation for, and participation in, CPUC workshops and webinars relating to various issues in the proceeding.Modeling (Model) / R.1602007 (170.75 hours, 14% of total) – Work relating to Production Cost Modeling issues, RESOLVE models, and participation in the Modeling Advisory Groups created for the review of IRP modeling issues. Includes review of modeling protocols and results used for the development of the Reference System Plan. Greenhouse Gas issues (GHG) / R.1602007 (135 hours, 11% of total) – Establishment of GHG targets, protocols and accounting methodologies.Procurement (Procure) / R.1602007 (66 hours, 5% of total) – Issues relating to nearterm procurement including proposals for tax advantaged renewables, reliability resources, the establishment of a procurement track and the development of backstop mechanisms.Enforcement (Enforce) / R.1602007 (27 hours, 2% of total) – Authority of the CPUC to oversee compliance by LSEs and enforce sanctions for noncompliance.Preferred System Plan (PSP) / R.1602007 (61 hours, 5% of total) – Development of Preferred System Plan and consideration of Hybrid Conforming Plan.Resource Shuffling (Resource) / R.1602007 (71 hours, 6% of total) – Examination of issues relating to resource shuffling. # is a multiissue allocator used for hours in R.1602007 that could not be assigned to a single issue. Hours coded with this allocator are assigned 35% to GHG, 5% to PSP, 25% to Resource, 25% to Procure, and 10% to Enforce.TURN submits that under the circumstances this information (in addition to the materials provided in Attachment 3) should suffice to address the allocation requirement under the Commission’s rules. Should the Commission wish to see additional or different information on this point, TURN requests that the Commission so inform TURN and provide a reasonable opportunity for TURN to supplement this showing accordingly.VerifiedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Matthew Freedman201211.50 $375 D.1505019$4,312.5011.50$375$4,312.50 Matthew Freedman201316.75 $400 D.1411019$6,700.0016.75$400$6,700.00 Matthew Freedman201411.50 $410 D.1506021$4,715.0011.50$410$4,715.00 Matthew Freedman20156.00 $410 D.1506021$2,460.006.00$410$2,460.00 Matthew Freedman201624.00$415D.1606024$9,960.0024.00$415$9,960.00 Matthew Freedman201732.25$425D.1801017$13,706.2532.25$425$13,706.25 Matthew Freedman201854.25$435D.1804020$23,598.7554.25$435$23,598.75 Matthew Freedman201933.00$445D.1804020 + Res ALJ357$14,685.0033.00$445$14,685.00 Marcel Hawiger20125.50$375D.1308022$2,062.505.50$375$2,062.50 Marcel Hawiger20130.25$400D.1405015$100.000.25$400$100.00Marcel Hawiger201489.25$410D.1506021$36,592.5089.25$410$36,592.50 Marcel Hawiger201540.50$410D.1611016$16,605.0040.50$410$16,605.00 Marcel Hawiger201612.75 $415 D.1606024$5,291.2512.75$415$5,291.25 Marcel Hawiger20172.00 $425 D.1711032$850.002.00$425$850.00 Marcel Hawiger20180.50$435D.1806023$217.500.50$435$217.50 Elise Torres20158.50$215D.1604037$1,827.508.50$215$1,827.50 Robert Finkelstein20141.25$505D.1508023, p. 24$631.251.25$505$631.25 Eric Borden201520.25$180D.1605015$3,645.0020.25$180$3,645.00 Eric Borden20165.50 $190D.1704032$1,045.005.50$190$1,045.00 Eric Borden20177.00 $205 D.1807022$1,435.007.00$205$1,435.00 Kevin Woodruff201272.75 $240 D.1211050$17,460.0072.75$240$17,460.00 Kevin Woodruff2013136.50 $240 D.1211050$32,760.00136.50$240$32,760.00 Kevin Woodruff2014410.00 $240 D.1211050$98,400.00410.00$240$98,400.00 Kevin Woodruff2015256.00$250D.1612060$64,000.00256.00$250$64,000.00 Kevin Woodruff2016262.00 $255 D.1612060$66,810.00262.00$255$66,810.00 Kevin Woodruff2017260.50 $ 260 D.1711029$67,730.00260.50$260$67,730.00 Kevin Woodruff2018206.25 $265 D.1807022$54,656.25206.25$265$54,656.25 Kevin Woodruff201986.00 $270 D.1807022 + RES ALJ357$23,220.0086.00$270$23,220.00 Subtotal: $575,476.25Subtotal: $575,476.25INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Marcel Hawiger20188.50 $218 50% of 2018 rate (D.1806023)$1,848.758.50$217.50 [1]$1,848.75Matthew Freedman20161.00 $208 50% of 2016 rate (D.1606024)$207.501.00$207.50 [2]$207.50Matthew Freedman20183.00 $218 50% of 2018 rate (D.1804020)$652.503.00$217.50 [3]$652.50Matthew Freedman201926.50 $223 50% of 2019 rate (D.1804020 + Res ALJ357)$5,896.2526.50$222.50 [4]$5,896.25Subtotal: $8,605Subtotal: $8,605.00COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1.CopyingCopying of testimony and pleadings for ALJ and Commissioner offices$78.41$78.412.FedEx/PostagePostage and FedEx for testimonies and pleadings to CPUC $55.13$55.133.PhonePhone charges$12.58$12.58Subtotal: $146.12Subtotal: $146.12TOTAL REQUEST: $584,227.37TOTAL AWARD: $584,227.37 *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 explanationRobert FinkelsteinJune 1990146391NElise TorresDecember 2011280443NMarcel Hawiger1/23/1998194244NMatthew FreedmanMarch 2001213812NAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/Comment1Certificate of Service2Attorney and Expert Hours in R.13120103Contributions relating to work performed in R.1312010 4Attorney and Expert Hours for Participation in Procurement Review Groups5Supplement providing required information relating to participation in Procurement Review Groups6List of Procurement Review Group meetings attended by TURN staff and consultants7Attorney and Expert Hours in R.16020078Expense DetailD. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1] Calculation adjustments for Mr.?HawigerAdjustments were made to correct calculations on Mr.?Hawiger’s half rate Comp preparation from $218 to $217.50 for work performed in 2018. [2] Calculation adjustments for Mr.?FreedmanAdjustments were made to correct calculations on Mr.?Freedman’s half rate Comp preparation from $208 to $207.50 for work performed in 2016.[3] Calculation adjustments for Mr.?FreedmanAdjustments were made to correct calculations on Mr.?Freedman’s half rate Comp preparation from $218 to $217.50 for work performed in 2018.[4] Calculation adjustments for Mr.?FreedmanAdjustments were made to correct calculations on Mr.?Freedman’s half rate Comp preparation from $223 to $222.50 for work performed in 2019.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?NoB. Comment 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.1904040, D.1802018, D.1606042, and participation in Utility Procurement Review GroupsThe requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform Network’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 are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $584,227.37.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 $584,227.37.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company, shall pay The Utility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on their Californiajurisdictional electric revenues for the 2014 2018 calendar years, to reflect the years 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 September 11, 2019, 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 May 28, 2020, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJER PresidentLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMA CommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2005050Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D1904040, D1802018, D1606042, and participation in Utility Procurement Review GroupsProceeding(s):R1602007 (and R1312010)Author:ALJ FitchPayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company.Intervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceThe Utility Reform NetworkJune 28, 2019$584,227.37$584,227.37N/ASee Disallowances and Adjustments, above Hourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedMatthewFreedmanAttorney$3752012$375MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4002013$400MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4102014$410MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4102015$410MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4152016$415MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4252017$425MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4352018$435MatthewFreedmanAttorney$4452019$445MarcelHawigerAttorney$3752012$375MarcelHawigerAttorney$4002013$400MarcelHawigerAttorney$4102014$410MarcelHawigerAttorney$4102015$410MarcelHawigerAttorney$4152016$415MarcelHawigerAttorney$4252017$425MarcelHawigerAttorney$4352018$435EliseTorresAttorney$2152015$215RobertFinkelsteinAttorney$5052014$505EricBordenExpert$1802015$180EricBordenExpert$1902016$190EricBordenExpert$2052017$205KevinWoodruffExpert$2402012$240KevinWoodruffExpert$2402013$240KevinWoodruffExpert$2402014$240KevinWoodruffExpert$2502015$250KevinWoodruffExpert$2552016$255KevinWoodruffExpert$2602017$260KevinWoodruffExpert$2652018$265KevinWoodruffExpert$2702019$270(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download