Online Documents

?ALJ/JF2/gp2PROPOSED DECISIONAgenda ID #19230RatesettingDecision __________BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking to Develop an Electricity Integrated Resource Planning Framework and to Coordinate and Refine Long-Term Procurement Planning RequirementsRulemaking 16-02-007DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE SIERRA CLUB FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 20-03-028Intervenor: The Sierra ClubFor contribution to Decisions (D.)?1911016, D.20-03-028Claimed: $54,076.00Awarded: $56,222.30Assigned Commissioner: Clifford RechtschaffenAssigned ALJ: Julie A. FitchPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: Decision (D.) 19-11-016 recommends that the State Water Resources Control Board extend the December 31, 2020 retirement deadlines for certain once-through-cooling (OTC) facilities. The Decision also requires incremental procurement of 3,300 MW by all load-serving entities (LSEs) within the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) balancing authority area. The Decision further requires that these resources not include new fossil-fuel-only resources. Decision 20-03-028 adopts a Reference System Portfolio of 46 MMT to be used by all LSEs, requires LSEs to present a portfolio based on a 38 MMT target, and grants the petition to modify D. 19-11-016 filed by CEJA, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Public Advocates Office with minor modification.Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812: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: 3. Date NOI filed:May 26, 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.17-01-020 (consolidated with A.17-01-021 and A.17-01-022)Consolidation Not Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:May 15, 2017Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status?YesShowing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:A.17-01-020 (consolidated with A.17-01-021 and A.17-01-022)Consolidation Not Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:May 15, 2017Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):[[ 12 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.19-11-016; D.20-03-028 Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: D.19-11-016; D.20-03-028 November 7, 2019; March 26, 202015. File date of compensation request:May 27, 2020Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesAdditional Comments on Part I: #Intervenor’s Comment(s)CPUC DiscussionSierra Club (“the Club” or “SC”) is a grassroots non-profit environmental organization interested in implementing measures to reducegreenhouse gas emissions andincrease reliance on renewable energysources. The Club’s interest in thisproceeding is not related to anybusiness interest. The Club receivesfunding for environmental advocacyfrom many sources, includingphilanthropic donations, membercontributions, and other sources. Verified PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONDid 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 DiscussionIssue A: OTC Units – Pointing to the many impacts of the OTC units, including air quality impacts on disadvantaged communities (DACs) and impacts to restoration efforts. SC argued that OTC plants should be extended only as a last resort and that the Commission should consider impacts to DACs when considering whether to extend plants. The Commission agreed with SC’s position and limited extensions of plants impacting disadvantaged communities. The Commission further noted that LSEs should try to procure ahead of schedule so that the extensions are not necessary.D.19-11-016, pp. 12, 18 (describing SC’s position). D.19-11-016, p. 20 (“Though the proposed decision also recommended extensions for the Ormond Beach and Redondo Beach power plants, we were persuaded by the comments of parties that these plants create more harm in their communities and/or would interfere with other plans already underway to redevelop their sites for community use. To mitigate against those effects” the extensions of Redondo and Ormond will be limited.). D.19-11-016, p. 22 (describing the Commission intent “to require additional procurement actions in order to ensure that any OTC extensions granted will not be needed beyond a temporary and maximum three-year period.”). D.19-11-016, p. 57 (“In deference to the considerable local government and disadvantaged community opposition to the Ormond Beach OTC extension request, we also limit the timeframe for this extension to no more than one year.”). D.19-11-016, COL 5, p. 73. D.19-11-016, COL 22, pp. 76-77. D.19-11-016, OP 1, pp. 79-80. CEJA/SC July 22, 2019 Comments, pp. 10-11. CEJA/SC October 18, 2019 Written Ex Parte Notice, pp. 2-3. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 2, 2019 Comments on PD, pp. 2-7. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 7, 2019 Reply Comments on PD, p. 2. VerifiedIssue A: Objected to OTC in the Baseline of the RSP. SC objected to the inclusion of the OTC units in the baseline because the Commission characterized these units as an insurance policy, and should be the last choice for procurement. D.20-03-028, pp. 32-33. The Commission agreed with SC and removed the OTC units from the baseline, noting that they should only be relied on as insurance.D.20-03-028, p. 35 (“in response to parties’ concerns about not assuming OTC extensions that may or may not happen, the OTC extensions in the early years of the decade were removed from the assumptions. If any extensions are granted by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), they will be available to perform the ‘insurance’ function that the Commission intended, but will not be built into the baseline.”). D.20-03-028, COL 11, p. 100. CEJA/SC December 17, 2019 Comments on the RSP, p. 2.VerifiedIssue B: Urged No Procurement of New Fossil-Fuel Resources. SC argued that LSEs should not be allowed to procure new fossil fuel resources to meet the procurement mandate. The Commission agreed with SC and adopted a prohibition on new fossil fuel resources, but it contained potential loopholes. SC and other groups filed a petition for modification of the decision to ensure that the loopholes were closed. The Commission granted SC’s joint petition with minor modifications. D.19-11-016, p. 43 (describing SC argument). D.19-11-016, p. 43 (“we will adopt the prohibition on new fossil-fueled resources suggested by CEJA, Sierra Club, and DOW in their comments. Specifically, any new development of fossil-fuel-only resources, at sites without previous electricity generation facilities, will not be considered to count toward any of the procurement obligations…”). D.19-11-016, p. 59 (“we have made the change recommended by CEJA, Sierra Club and DOW….”).D.19-11-016, FOF 19, p. 71. D.20-03-028, p. 82 (“the parties to the Joint PFM are correct in the sense that we did not intend to encourage hybrid projects that are predominantly conventional in nature…Therefore, we grant the Joint PFM and clarify the Commission’s intent…”). D.20-03-028, p. 82 (“the Commission does prohibit new natural gas generation turbines at new sites, even if storage is added….”). D.20-03-028, p. 82 (“the addition of gas turbines [at existing sites] must be shown to create GHG benefits.”). D.20-03-028, FOF 29, p. 98. D.20-03-028, COLs 31, 32, p. 103. D.20-03-028, OP 16, p. 108.CEJA/SC July 22, 2019 Comments, pp. 11-12. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 2, 2019 Comments on PD, pp. 9-12. CEJA/SC October 18, 2019 Ex Parte Notice, p. 2. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 7, 2019 Reply Comments on PD, p. 3. CEJA/SC/DOW/PAO December 11, 2019 Petition to Modify Decision 19-11-016. CEJA/SC March 12, 2020 Comments on PD, pp. 8-10. CEJA/SC March 17, 2020 Reply Comments on PD, p. 5. VerifiedIssue B: Raised Need to Evaluate Natural Gas Phase-Out.SC argued that the Commission needs to do more to phase-out gas with a priority on disadvantaged communities and lowering air pollutant emissions. The Commission required LSEs to explain in their IRPs how they evaluate opportunities to reduce reliance on gas.D.20-03-028, p. 64 (“In addition to those requirements, all LSEs are required to explain how they have evaluated opportunities to reduce reliance on natural gas generation between now and 2030.”). D.20-03-028, pp. 90-91 (“The Commission also acknowledges the need for additional focus on analysis to determine ongoing need for, and potential retirement of, natural gas generators, with a priority on disadvantaged communities and local air pollutant emissions.”).D.20-03-028, OP 5, p. 105. CEJA/SC July 22, 2019 Comments on Ruling Initiating Procurement Track, pp. 7-10. CEJA/SC August 12, 2019 Reply Comments on Ruling Initiating Procurement Track, p. 5. CEJA/SC Oct. 15, 2019 Comments on Filing Requirements, p. 22. CEJA/SC December 17, ments on Proposed RSP, pp. 16-18. CEJA/SC March 12, 2020 Comments on PD, pp. 6-7. CEJA/SC March 17, 2020 Reply Comments on PD, p. 4. VerifiedIssue C: Procurement Requirements: Emphasized Need for Clear Baseline and Clear Procurement MandateSC argued that several aspects of the procurement analysis and requirements were unclear, including what baseline resources were considered, and whether imports and certain plants were included in the baseline. The Commission agreed and required that the Decision include a list of baseline resources for clarity. D.19-11-016, pp. 31-32 (clarifying that imports may count as incremental procurement as long as certain conditions are met). D.19-11-016, p. 32 (clarifying some of the baseline resources and requiring that a baseline list is finalized to accompany the Decision). D.19-11-016, p. 57 (“We agree that the list baseline resources needs to be explicit, and have made a provision that Commission staff will publish the baseline listing….”). D.19-11-016, COLs 14-16, p. 75. D.19-11-016, OP 6, pp. 82-83. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 2, 2019 Comments on PD, pp. 7-9. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 7, 2019 Reply Comments on PD, pp. 2-3. CEJA/SC October 18, 2019 Ex Parte Notice, p. 1. VerifiedIssue C: Procurement Requirements: Suggested Mechanism to Ensure Procurement Occurs. SC requested that the Decision include an enforcement mechanism to ensure that procurement requirements are met. The Commission provided a mechanism to ensure that procurement requirements are met if an LSE does not meet the procurement requirement. If an LSE does not procure its required share of the capacity requirements, the local IOU will procure the capacity on its behalf.D.19-11-016, p. 60 (“we have made it explicit that if an LSE does not procure its required share of the capacity requirements in this decision, our recourse will be to require the IOU to procure on behalf of the LSE in its territory, and then the costs of that procurement allocated to the customers of the LSE that is deficient, through the use of a cost allocation mechanism, potentially as modified in the future ot address this scenario…”) D.19-11-016, COL 13, pp. 74-75. D.19-11-016, OP 5, pp. 81-82. CEJA/SC July 22, 2019 Comments, p. 13. CEJA/SC/DOW Oct. 7, 2019 Reply Comments on PD, p. 4. Issue D: GHG Planning Target: Need for Groundtruthing.SC argued that the Commission’s models systematically underestimate GHG emissions. D. 16. The Commission required Commission staff to complete additional analysis to understand the differences between the model and actual emissions as reported by CAISO. D. 28-29. D.20-03-028, pp. 29-30 (“We will also ask Commission staff to conduct this benchmarking analysis in each cycle of IRP, including to apply to the RSP adopted in this decision.”).CEJA/SC July 18, 2019 Informal Comments on MAG Materials, pp. 2-3. CEJA/SC October 14, 2019 Comments on Filing Requirements, p. 7. CEJA/SC December 17, 2019 Comments on Proposed RSP, p. 3, 14-15. CEJA/SC January 15, 2020 Reply Comments on Proposed RSP, pp. 2-3. CEJA/SC March 12, 2020 Comments on PD, pp. 2-4. VerifiedIssue D: GHG Planning Target: Need for Lower GHG Target.SC argued that the Commission should adopt a 30 MMT target, or at least a 38 MMT target to put the state on track of clean energy, GHG, and air quality goals, and lower emissions. D. 25. SC also argued that the Commission should adopt a lower target given the uncertainties of whether the 46 MMT target falls within CARB’s range. The Commission required LSEs to also evaluate a 38 MMT target to allow the Commission the opportunity to evaluate the plans conforming to a lower GHG target. D.20-03-028, p. 31 (“[I]n response to continuing concerns of numerous parties that the 46 MMT target is still too high, given uncertainties, we will also require all LSEs, when filing their individual IRPs, to submit at least two portfolios: one conforming to the 46 MMT planning target for the sector, and a second conforming to a 38 MMT target in 2030.”). D.20-03-028, p. 86 (describing how the Commission modified the decision to require a 46 MMT and a 38 MMT portfolio because then “the Commission will have a chance to evaluate the LSE plans conforming to a lower GHG target in 2030 based on actual procurement planning by LSEs”). D.20-03-028, COL 8, p. 100. D.20-03-028, COL 23, p. 102 D.20-03-028, OP 2, p. 104. CEJA/SC December 17, 2019 Comments on Proposed RSP, pp. 13-16. CEJA/SC January 15, 2020 Reply Comments on the Proposed RSP, pp. 2-3. CEJA/SC March 12, 2020 Comments on the PD, pp. 2-6. CEJA/SC March 17, 2020 Reply Comments on PD, pp. 2-3. VerifiedIssue D: Plan Filing Requirements: LSEs should be able to file other plans with different GHG targets SC argued that LSEs should be allowed to file alternate portfolios to study lower GHG targets. The Commission agreed and granted this flexibility to LSEs.D.20-03-028, p. 62 (“individual LSEs will be permitted to file additional alternate portfolios, that must explain the differences in assumptions and how they deviate from the ‘conforming’ portfolio…). D.20-03-028, p. 87 (“The decision has also been modified to allow LSEs to file additional alternative portfolios, as they sit fit, since there was never any intention to have the GHG target set by the Commission prohibit LSEs from making investments in GHG-free resources faster.”).D.20-03-028, OP 4, p. 105. CEJA/SC Oct. 14, 2019 Comments on Filing Requirements, pp. 3-4. CEJA/SC October 25, 2019 Comments on Filing Requirements, pp. 2-3. CEJA/SC March 12, 2020 Comments on PD, pp. 7-8. Verified Issue E: Urging Improvements to Criteria Pollutant Planning Analysis SC requested several improvements to the criteria pollutant analysis in the IRP, including analysis of biomass facilities, analysis of pollutants by air basin, and reporting of emissions through the CSP calculator. SC noted that the criteria pollutants in the Commission’s modeling were increasing from 2022-2030 in the proposed RSP. The Commission improved the criteria pollutant analysis to include biomass emissions, analyze pollutants by air basin, and by updating the CSP calculator to include criteria emissions. The Commission also emphasized LSE duty to minimize criteria pollutant emissions. See D.20-03-028, p. 45 (referencing new analysis). See D.20-03-028, p. 58 (describing how criteria pollutant reporting is now automated through the CSP calculator). D.20-03-028, p. 64 (“we reiterate the requirements, also included in D.18-02-018, that all LSEs must minimize criteria air pollutants, with priority on disadvantaged communities…”). D.20-03-028, p. 65 (“The CSP Calculator now includes an automated approach to calculating criteria air pollutants associated with the LSEs portfolio.”).D.20-03-028, p. 90 (“we agree with Sierra Club and CEJA that additional attention is warranted in the area of criteria pollutants.”). D.20-03-028, OP 5, p. 105. CEJA/SC Jan. 4, 2019 Comments on Inputs and Assumptions, pp. 13-27. CEJA/SC July 18, 2019 Informal Comments on MAG Presentation, pp. 4-9. CEJA/SC Oct. 14, 2019 Comments on Filing Requirements, pp. 12-15. CEJA/SC Oct. 25, 2019 Reply Comments on Filing Requirements, pp. 3-4. CEJA/SC Dec. 17, 2019 Comments on Proposed RSP, pp. 8-11. CEJA/SC January 15, 2020 Reply Comments on Proposed RSP, pp. 3-6. CEJA/SC March 12, 2020 Comments on PD, p. 6. CEJA/SC March 17, 2020 Reply Comments on PD, pp. 3-4.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: CEJA was the primary intervenor taking positions similar to Sierra Club. Other parties that took similar positions include: the Public Advocates Office, Natural Resource Defense Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: Sierra Club worked collaboratively with many other parties who shared itsinterests, including the parties listed above. Sierra Club frequently met with the parties listed above over the past year to discuss staff reports and workshop materials and coordinate comments to avoid duplication.Sierra Club offered a unique perspective throughout the proceeding on behalf of its members throughout California, including ratepayers who care deeply about protecting the environment and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Sierra Club members strongly support a rapid transition to a fossil fuel-free electric grid powered by renewable energy.Sierra Club submitted comments jointly with CEJA due to both parties’ shared interest in transitioning the grid to renewable energy in an equitable manner. The work of Sierra Club complemented the work of CEJA and vice versa.CEJA and Sierra Club communicated to coordinate strategy, share resources, and complete joint filings in the proceeding. Collaborating significantly minimized time spent drafting, researching, and analyzing issues. By working together on comments, Sierra Club and CEJA advocated more comprehensively and robustly in favor of policies that will help California reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from its electric sector and ensure that air quality is improved in disadvantaged communities. Sierra Club and CEJA focused many of their joint comments on the fossil fuel and OTC issues and in particular effects of these resources on disadvantaged communities. This this collaboration minimized drafting and research time. The coordinated efforts of CEJA and Sierra Club avoided the potential for duplication.In addition, Sierra Club coordinated with other environmental groups and utility stakeholders where positions appeared to overlap to draft joint comments and avoid duplication. For example, Sierra Club coordinated with CEJA, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Public Advocates Office in drafting a Petition to Modify Decision 19-11-016. NotedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: Sierra Club participated in this proceeding to advocate for integrated resource planning that achieves the requirements laid out by SB 350, SB 32, and other environmental law and policies. Meeting these requirements will benefit ratepayers over the long term, as it will reduce health risks associated with air pollution and mitigate the impacts of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions from the electric sector.Sierra Club participated in all major aspects of this time-intensive, complicated proceeding, including filing multiple informal and formal comments related to the planning, OTC extensions, the modeling inputs and outputs, the disadvantaged community and air quality requirements, the greenhouse gas requirements, and future IRP activities. Sierra Club also attended the workshops in the proceeding and participated in the Modeling Advisory Group and numerous discussions with LSEs, the Public Advocates Office, and non-governmental organization partners.Sierra Club comments in this proceeding included significant legal, policy, and technical research on the many topics raised by the Commission’s rulings, workshops, and decision. Sierra Club helped provide the Commission with key information to make a determination from the record. The Commission adopted many of Sierra Club’s positions in the Final Decisions.Many of the collaboration hours were spent discussing the importance of aspects of disadvantaged communities and air quality positions with other parties in the proceeding to develop alignment on these issues. Sierra Club’s request for fees and costs is likely to be a very small portion of the benefits that utility customers are likely to ultimately realize due to increased air quality, limiting OTC extensions, and prohibiting procurement of new fossil-fueled resources that are inconsistent with state’s climate goals. Verifiedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed: R.16-02-007 is a complex, multiyear proceeding. Sierra Club has participated in all major aspects of the proceeding, including filing multiple formal and informal comments. Sierra Club has also attended numerous workshops and participated in the Modeling Advisory Group to provide input to staff as they developed the staff proposal. In partnership with CEJA and other environmental groups, Sierra Club submitted numerous sets of comments, both formal and informal, in addition to a petition to modify, on the issues that D.19-11-016 and D.20-03-028 address. Engaging in this way demanded a large investment of time from Sierra Club’s representatives. For example, to provide relevant comments, Sierra Club often reviewed over 30 sets of party comments. The amount of time spent on the proceeding is reasonable considering Sierra Club’s wide-ranging participation in and contribution to a wide range of issue and outcomes addressed in the proceeding. Furthermore, the Club’s hours are likely very low considering the number of filings, workshops, meetings, issues, comments, and parties in this proceeding. Sierra Club was represented in this proceeding by Earthjustice, a public interest environmental law firm. Nina Robertson, the lead attorney on this matter, has nearly three years of experience at the Commission and nine years of relevant legal practice. Ms. Robertson attended workshops and drafted comments advocating for Sierra Club’s positions in this proceeding. Katie Ramsey is a staff attorney with seven years of experience in energy law and over four years of experience representing environmental groups at the Commission’s electric utility proceedings. Ms. Ramsey analyzed rulings, comments, and technical issues to help develop positions in the proceeding and to ensure that positions represented the Sierra Club’s interests as well as positions in related proceedings. Sierra Club was conscious of limiting hours and time spent on the proceeding and is not requesting hours that are duplicative or excessive. For example, Sierra Club removed all the hours discussing the issue internally. Ms. Robertson led comment drafting and coordinated with Ms. Ramsey to avoid internal duplication. Ms. Robertson and Ms. Ramsey’s CPUC experience and leadership reduced the number of hours required to develop briefs and comments for their own work. Working together, they avoided duplication. Verifiedc. Allocation of hours by issue: SC has allocated all its attorney and expert time by issue area or activity, as evident by the attached timesheets. The following issues allocate hours by specific substantive issues and activity areas addressed by SC. SC also provides an approximate breakdown of the number of hours spent on each task and the percentage of total hours devoted to each category. Issue A: OTC Unit Retirements – 13.78% of hours Work on issues related to the analysis of OTC plants includes time spent researching legal and factual issues, receiving input from various environmental justice advocates, drafting technical and legal comments, and responding to critiques raised by other parties. Issue B: Fossil Fuel Procurement and Lowering Reliance on Fossil Fuel Procurement – 20.16% of hours Work on issues related to opposing new fossil fuel procurement includes time spent researching legal and factual issues, discussions with other groups, research of other agencies’ findings and documents, analyzing modeling, drafting technical and legal comments, and responding to critiques raised by other parties. Issue C: Procurement Requirements – 8.97% of hours Work on issues related to the procurement requirements includes researching legal and factual issues, analyzing modeling, drafting technical and legal comments, and responding to critiques raised by other parties. Issue D: Planning Considerations related to RSP and LSE Plans, including GHGs – 12.90% of hours Work on issues related to the planning considerations includes researching legal and factual issues, analyzing modeling, drafting technical and legal comments, and responding to critiques raised by other parties. Much of this work focused on issues related to the overall GHG target. Issue E: Inputs and Assumptions, including Criteria Pollutant Analyses – 35.35% of hours Work on issues related to the inputs and assumptions includes researching legal and factual issues, analyzing modeling, drafting technical and legal comments, and responding to critiques raised by other parties. Issue F: General Participation – 3.69 % of hours General participation work is work that is essential to participation in the proceeding that typically spans multiple issues and/or is necessary for participating in the proceeding. This includes reviewing the initial Commission rulings, initial review of proposals by Staff, ex parte meetings, and work coordinating with other parties on general issues. If discussions with other parties were focused on a particular issue, those hours are allocated under that issue. Issue G: Intervenor Compensation – 5.97 % of hours Work preparing this request for compensation and analyzing the initial Commission decision related to compensation. SC submits that given the broad and extensive nature of this proceeding, this information should suffice to address the allocation requirement under the Commission’s rules. If the Commission wishes to see additional or different information at this point, CEJA requests that the Commission inform it and provide a reasonable opportunity to supplement this showing accordingly. Total hours: 100.82%.Specific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Attorney- Nina C. Robertson20185.6$340D.20-01-019$1,9045.6$340$1,904.00Attorney- Nina C. Robertson201994.8$350D.20-01-019$33,18094.8$350$33,180.00Attorney- Nina C. Robertson202025.7$360Requested here$9,25225.7$360$9,252.00Attorney- Katie Ramsey201921$320D.20-01-019$6,72021$320$6,720.00Attorney- Katie Ramsey202010.4$330Requested here$10,15210.40$330[1]$3,432.00[2]Subtotal: $52,341.7Subtotal: $54,488.00INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Nina Robertson2020$174Half of 2019/2020 rateALJ-357D.04-04-012, D.20-02-022, D.20-02-065 $991.85.70[3]$174.00$991.80Katie Ramsey20204.5$165Half of requested 2020 rate$742.504.5$165$742.50Subtotal: $1,743.5Subtotal: $1,734.30TOTAL REQUEST: $54,076.00TOTAL AWARD: $56,222.30 *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 explanationNina C. RobertsonNovember 11, 2010276089No.Katie RamseyFebruary 11, 2015302532NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/CommentAttachment 1Certificate of ServiceAttachment 2TimesheetsComment 1The Commission awarded Ms. Robertson an hourly rate of $350 for 2019 work in D.20-01-019. The Commission has not yet adopted a cost-of-living adjustment (“COLA”) for 2020 intervenor compensation hourly rates. Pending a formal Commission determination, Sierra Club used a placeholder COLA of 2% to the rate requested for Ms. Robertson. Based on this 2% adjustment, Ms. Robertson’s requested hourly rate for 2020 is $360 when rounded to the nearest $10. If the Commission adopts a COLA that would lead to a different hourly rate for Ms. Robertson, Sierra Club respectfully requests that the Commission adjust these hourly rates accordingly. Comment 2The Commission awarded Ms. Ramsey an hourly rate of $320 for 2019 work in D.20-01-019. The Commission has not yet adopted a cost-of-living adjustment (“COLA”) for 2020 intervenor compensation hourly rates. Pending a formal Commission determination, Sierra Club used a placeholder COLA of 2% to the rate requested for Ms. Ramsey. Based on this 2% adjustment, Ms. Ramsey’s requested hourly rate for 2020 is $330 when rounded to the nearest $10. If the Commission adopts a COLA that would lead to a different hourly rate for Ms. Ramsey, Sierra Club respectfully requests that the Commission adjust these hourly rates accordingly. D. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1]Adopting $330 rate for 2020. New rate based on Ms. Ramsey’s 2019 rate adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-387 (2.55% COLA).[2]Math error. Correct total for Ms. Ramsey’s 2020 fees is $3,432.[3]Total Icomp hours Ms. Robertson worked in 2020 is 5.7per timesheets submitted.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 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTThe Sierra Club has made a substantial contribution to D.19-11-016, D. 20-03-028The requested hourly rates for The Sierra Club’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 $56,222.30.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERThe Sierra Club shall be awarded $56,222.30. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison shall pay The Sierra Club their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdiction electric revenues for the 2019 calendar year, to reflect the year 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, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning August 10,2020 the 75th day after the filing of The Sierra Club’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):D1911016; D2003028 Proceeding(s):R1602007Author:ALJ Julie A. FitchPayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceSierra ClubMay 27, 2020$54,076.00$56,222.30N/ASee CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments aboveHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedNinaRobertsonAttorney$3402018$340.00NinaRobertsonAttorney$3502019$350.00NinaRobertsonAttorney$3602020$360.00Katie RamseyAttorney$3202019$320.00Katie RamseyAttorney$3302020$330.00(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download