Icomp Claim Form - California



ALJ/EDF/avsDate of Issuance 5/4/2017Decision 17-04-037 April 27, 2017BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIn the Matter of the Application of SAN?DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U902E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the South Orange County Reliability Enhancement Project.Application 12-05-020(Filed May 18, 2012)DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO FOREST RESIDENTSOPPOSING NEW TRANSMISSION LINES FORCONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 16-12-064Intervenor: Forest Residents Opposing New Transmission LinesFor contribution to Decision (D.) 16-12-064 Claimed: $196,852.32Awarded: $179,223.56Assigned Commissioner: Michael PickerAssigned ALJ: Darwin FarrarPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: Approves a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the South Orange County Reliability Enhancement ProjectIntervenor 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):Nov. 19, 2014Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed:Dec. 18, 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:A.12-05-020Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:February 6, 2015February 09, 2015 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 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:A.12-05-020Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:February 6, 2015February 09, 201511. 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.16-12-064Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 21, 2016Verified15. File date of compensation request:February 13, 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 DiscussionIn this proceeding, FRONTLINES made substantive contributions to the FEIR and also contributed substantially to the Commission’s SOCREP deliberations in two areas set forth in the Scoping Memo: Are there project alternatives that avoid significant adverse environmental impacts? FRONTLINES efforts on this issue focused on development of Alternative J and the “No Project” alterative to avoid all significant adverse environmental impacts, and exploration of the efficacy of the SOCREP alternative. Is there need for a project? FRONTLINES efforts on this issue focused on NERC and CAISO compliance (scoping issue 1c), and whether the types of load losses recognized by NERC and CAISO warrant a need for SOCREP (scoping issues 1a and 1b), and load growth (scoping issue 1e). FRONTLINES also expended considerable effort to defend against multiple SDGE motions to strike testimony and forestall SDGE’s efforts to add impermissible new and prejudicial testimony to the record. FRONTLINES also responded to extensive SDGE discovery requests from SDGE, but the information provided was not used or even referred to by SDGE in this proceeding FRONTLINES’ substantial contributions on these issues are set forth below. Scoping Issue 3 identified in Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner issued February 23, 2015 [page 8].Scoping Issue 1 identified in Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner issued February 23, 2015 [page 8].Four separate motions to strike FRONTLINES testimony were filed by SDGE, as set forth in detail below.Verified1. FRONTLINES’ Contributions to the FEIR alternatives analysis In late 2014, FRONTLINES proposed the Trabuco Alternative “J” and provided the Commission’s Energy Division with aerial photographs indicating the proximity of the Trabuco distribution substation to SCE’s 230 kV lines. FRONTLINES also recommended the Trabuco Alternative in comments submitted on the CEQA Screening Report. FRONTLINES offered testimony on the viability of the Trabuco Alternative in the first round of intervenor testimony served in May 26, 2015. FRONTLINES’ testimony on the efficacy of Trabuco Alternative J complemented ORA’s testimony.The Draft EIR was revised to include Trabuco Alternative J and was recirculated in August, 2015FRONTLINES provided compelling testimony demonstrating the feasibility of the Trabuco Alternative, and extensively addressed the issue of whether the 230 kV Trabuco substation fits on the project site identified in the RDEIR with all the access and hydromodification improvements deemed necessary by SDGE.The Trabuco Alternative “J” was designated as the “Environmentally Superior” Project Alternative in the FEIR, and was certified as such in the SOCREP decision. Aerial photos provided in November, 2014FRONTLINES’ comments on the CEQA Screening Report [Comment #318 in the SOCREP FEIR]FRONTLINES’ Direct Testimony served May, 2015 [Exhibit 400.1 C at 17]RDEIR page 2-22 AND Response to Comment #318 in the SOCREP FEIRFRONTLINES’ Supplemental Rebuttal testimony [Exhibit 402 at 13-15].Opening Brief at 23-27FEIR Section 5.3D.16-12-064 [finding of fact #9].Verified2. FRONTLINES’ Contributions to Scoping Issue 3 – SOCREP is not a Viable alternative. From inception of the SOCREP proceeding, FRONTLINES advanced extensive factual evidence showing that SOCREP is susceptible to multiple failure modes, introduces reliability problems, will not prevent outages in South Orange County. FRONTLINES’ evidence of these facts is provided in FRONTLINES’ testimony and exhibits and in the examination that FRONTLINES conducted of SDGE’s witnesses, as set forth in FRONTLINES’ Opening Brief. This factual evidence showed the extent to which SOCREP embodies multiple deficiencies, rendering it inferior to other project alternatives.SOCREP Reliability concerns were also addressed by FRONTLINES in comments submitted on various proposed and alternate proposed decisions.FRONTLINES factual evidence was considered by the Commission prior to adopting D.16-12-064: “FRONTLINES argues that while the SOCRE Project might mitigate outage risks to the entire South Orange County posed by the maintenance scenarios posited by SDG&E, it does not and can-not prevent all possible outages as it does not provide a second 230 kV source that is located far from the Talega substation””Indeed, according to FRONTLINES, the SOCRE Project is intrinsically designed to serve South Orange County load via infrastructure that is susceptible to the same extreme catastrophic events that would remove Talega from service” and “configured in such a way that it poses significant risk to South Orange County load during certain contingency events at Capistrano even if the Talega substation is fully operational”.“According to FRONTLINES, the risk to one-third of the South Orange County load not addressed by the SOCRE Project can only be mitigated by “jumpering” a “shoe-fly” connection between one of the Laguna Niguel lines to one of the Trabuco lines and that. FRONTLINES argues that installation of this connection would cause more than one-third of South Orange County customers to be without power for a day and, should the South Orange County load “peak” while the “jumper” connection were in place, lines TL13131 and 13838 would exceed their emergency thermal rating, which would demand even more load shedding to keep all lines operating within acceptable limits” “FRONTLINES argues that even if the SOCRE Project is constructed as proposed, South Orange County will experience voltage problems if Talega is removed from service because any event which removes Talega from service will also take Talega’s synchronous condensers off-line, and the synchronous condensers are needed to provide voltage support throughout SDGE’s entire South Orange County system.”The Proposed Decision concludes that “…it is readily apparent that the SOCRE Project goes far beyond the needs of SDG&E’s South Orange County service area. Less apparent, but nonetheless clear is the fact that while the SOCRE Project will mitigate outage risks to the entire South Orange County posed by the maintenance scenarios posited by SDG&E, there are other outage risks that SDG&E has failed to identify that are better addressed by project alternatives other than the SOCRE Project.”The arguments set forth by FRONTLINES were incorporated into the factual findings recommended by the Proposed Decision: “While the SOCRE Project might mitigate outage risks to the entire South Orange County posed by the maintenance scenarios posited by SDG&E, it does not and cannot prevent all possible outages.”“There are outage risks to the South Orange County area that SDGE has failed to identify that are better addressed by project alternatives other than the SOCRE Project.”FRONTLINES’ Protest Filed June 22, 2012 at 4.FRONTLINES’ Testimony (Exhibit 400.1C at 20)] Opening Brief at11,12,14,38,48.FRONTLINES’ Ex. 429TR 56 at 27 to 57 at 15TR 135 at 2-9TR 134 at 24 to 135 at 1TR 134 at 2-17TR 135 at 2-9TR 210 at 21-26TR 1149 at 26 to 1150 at 24TR 1151 at 10-22. Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision at ments on Revised Alternate Proposed Decision at 4, 7, 11.Proposed Decision at 31 Alternate Proposed Decision at 32Proposed Decision at 32. Proposed Decision at 32Proposed Decision at 32.Proposed Decision at 33.Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #30: “Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #31: Verified3. FRONTLINES’ Contributions To Scoping Issue 3 – The Trabuco Alternative FRONTLINES advanced extensive factual evidence regarding the efficacy of Trabuco Alternative “J” because it will serve South Orange County load via a new 230 kV transmission line from SCE’s service area and ensures 230 kV service to SOC even under extreme (i.e. earthquake) circumstances that interrupt 230 kV service from Escondido and SONGS and drop SOCREP. FRONTLINES demonstrated how the Trabuco Alternative secures SOC load and provides full redundancy.FRONTLINES was the only party to offer testimony that disproved CAISO’s claim that the Trabuco Alternative would adversely impact operations on SCE’s Johanna-Ellis corridor. FRONTLINES testified that a new 230 kV substation would fit on the 2.3-acre site identified by the FEIR for the Trabuco Alternative and accommodate SDGE’s hydromodification and access needs. The Commission considered FRONTLINES’ position that SOCREP does not eliminate SOC load risk and that SOC load risk can only be eliminated by providing a second power source (like Trabuco) that is far from Talega:“FRONTLINES acknowledges there is a small outage risk to the South Orange County area. However, FRONTLINES argues that the small outage risk to the entire South Orange County load can be eliminated and concludes that ‘The risk of an extreme contingency event that removes Talega from service can only be properly mitigated by providing South Orange County with a second 230 kV source that is located far from the Talega Substation and is served by infrastructure that will not be affected by an extreme (fire, earthquake, terrorism, etc.) event occurring in and around the Talega Substation.”“Testimony provided by SDGE witnesses on cross-examination generally supports FRONTLINES’ conclusion on this point.”“According to FRONTLINES”, the “risks of various contingency events that drop the entire South Orange County load” are addressed by the Trabuco Alternative because it “establishes a power source which is located far from the Talega Substation and is served by infrastructure that will not be affected by an extreme event (fire, earthquake, terrorism, etc.) in and/or around the Talega Substation and thereby eliminates the risks to the entire South Orange County load.”“In addition to eliminating risks to the entire South Orange County load, FRONTLINES asserts that the Trabuco alternative is superior to the SOCRE Project because it: - is far less costly and will not cause load shedding even if Trabuco is removed from service while Talega remains operational. - can be supplied with voltage support in the event Talega is removed from service via the synchronous condensers recently installed at Santiago. - is fully redundant to Talega because South Orange County load will be fully served by Trabuco in the event Talega is removed from service, and South Orange County load will be fully served by Talega in the event Trabuco is removed from service.”The Proposed Decision endorsed the Trabuco Alternative configuration advanced by FRONTLINES: “According to FRONTLINES” the Trabuco Alternative “requires the construction of a new 230 kV substation which includes two high capacity (392) MVA transformers in a breaker and a half configuration on the 2.3 acre parcel north of the existing Trabuco distribution substation, modifications at Talega that remove existing transformers 60 and 62 and place the two high capacity (392 MVA) transformers in a breaker and a half configuration, and rearranging the transformer connections at Talega so that they terminate in different bays on both the 230 kV side and the 138 kV side.”“with changes at Talega and installation of two transformers at Trabuco, South Orange County would be served by four high capacity transformers configured in a breaker and a half arrangement. With this configuration no load will be dropped if a Category D contingency event occurs at either Trabuco or at Talega, giving Alternative J addition a level of reliability unmatched by the SOCRE Project or any other alternative.”FRONTLINES also contributed substantially to the Commission’s contemplation of how “loop flow” concerns are resolved with Trabuco Alternative J: “FRONTLINES rebuttal testimony clearly identifies “opening the Trabuco-Santiago circuit” as a remedy to eliminate flow out of South Orange County to SCE (aka “loop” flow) [Exhibit 401 page 6 at 20]. This FRONTLINES testimony was never refuted in the record by either SDG&E or CAISO via exhibits or during cross examination of the FRONTLINES witness [see transcript pages 1324-1371].”“FRONTLINES points out that the CAISO’s witness confirmed that opening the transformer connection at Trabuco would indeed reduce the flow out of Trabuco to zero, and eliminate any overload created by loop flow through the transformer. FRONTLINES notes that SDGE does not dispute its testimony that loop flow through South Orange County can be eliminated by disconnecting South Orange County from the Santiago- Trabuco line when extreme circumstances occur.” FRONTLINES arguments contributed to factual determinations considered by the Commission:“The changes at Talega and the installation of two transformers at Trabuco afford Alternative J a level of reliability unmatched by the SOCRE Project or any other project alternative.”“Alternative J will enhance the safety and reliability of service to the South Orange County service area.”FRONTLINES’ Testimony (Exhibit 400.1C at 17-19)Reply Brief at 33-34.Opening Brief at 13, 23, and 27.Reply Brief at 33-34.FRONTLINES Rebuttal Testimony [Exhibit 401] at 7-11Ibid at 13-15Proposed Decision at 38.Proposed Decision at 39. Proposed Decision at 39. Proposed Decision at 40 and footnote 74Alternate Proposed Decision at 41 and footnote 63. Proposed Decision at 39Proposed Decision at 49Proposed Decision at footnote 103;Alternate Proposed Decision at Footnote 69Proposed Decision at 47 andAlternate Proposed Decision at 43Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #56. Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #57. Verified4. FRONTLINES Contributions To Scoping Issue 3 – The “No Project Alternative.”FRONTLINES was the only party to testify that all of the contingency and thermal overload concerns that SDGE identifies in testimony (Exhibit 1.2] can be addressed without SOCREP by replacing conductor with ACSS on existing structures and making minor substation modifications. FRONTLINES provided detailed technical testimony regarding each modification/conductor upgrade needed to secure SOC load without SOCREP. FRONTLINES was the only party to testify that all of the maintenance outage concerns which SDGE identified as justification for SOCREP can be mitigated by minor substation modifications without SOCREP. FRONTLINES testified that SDGE’s maintenance outage and thermal overload concerns can be eliminated achieved without constructing a project to connect South Orange County to a new 230 kV power source.FRONTLINES testified that no project was necessary to secure South Orange County load against all losses except a catastrophic event at Talega, and that the only justification for a project would be to provide South Orange County with a second power source. FRONTLINES was the only party to brief the specific elements required to address every single maintenance and reliability concern in SOC except a catastrophic loss of Talega, and showed that no project was needed to secure SOC load. FRONTLINES was the only party to brief the fact that, regardless of NERC compliance, no project was needed to secure SOC load against any loss other than a catastrophic loss at Talega. FRONTLINES clarified that the only real decision before the Commission was whether South Orange County should have 2 power sources. If so, then a project must be approved; if not, then no project should be approved.The Commission considered this “no project” alternative recommended by FRONTLINES and its ability to eliminate load risks in South Orange County: “FRONTLINES’ second alternative involves modifications to the Talega substation independent of the addition of a second source at Trabuco. FRONTLINES acknowledges that this alternative does not address the risk to South Orange County load that is posed by a catastrophic event at Talega, butasserts that it mitigates the risks posed by maintenance events at Talega.The “No Project” Alternative endorsed by the Revised Proposed Decision encompasses all of FRONTLINES recommended actions, including reconductoring, substation modifications, and “actions that SDGE can pursue without the need for a project under CEQA. Likewise, SDG&E can pursue certain reconductoring activities as part of its ongoing maintenance activities. Such maintenance activities are not expected to cause a significant impact as they would be constructed without the need to obtain a CPCN.” The Revised Proposed Decision affirms that all of the elements which FRONTLINES’ asserts will secure SOC load without SOCREP are in fact elements of the “no project” alternative.The “No Project” Alternative was endorsed by the Revised Proposed Decision, designated by the FEIR as the “Environmentally Superior” Alternative and identified as such in the decision adopted by the Commission.FRONTLINES Reply Testimony [Exhibit 400.1C] Chapters 3 & 4Ibid at Chapter 5.Ibid at 17: “For reasons provided above, it does not seem that connecting SOC to a new 230 kV power source at Capistrano is.... necessary to address the 18 “exceedence” scenarios or the 14 “load shedding” scenarios that SDGE identified in Initial Testimony.”Ibid at 17 line 29: Chapters 3, 4, and 5.Opening Brief Section 2.4Opening Brief at 47 “Selection of the most appropriate alternative is driven by the extent to which the Commission deems it necessary to provide a second power source to serve the South Orange County distribution system in the extreme event that Talega is removed from service”Proposed Decision at 40Revised Proposed Decision at 10Revised Proposed Decision at 1FEIR at 5-5 AND D.16-12-064 at 12Verified5. FRONTLINES’ Contributions To Scoping Issue 1–Project “Need” for NERC compliance FRONTLINES advanced extensive factual evidence and legal argument showing that compliance with NERC standards is only required for elements of the Bulk Electrical System and because SDGE’s South Orange County area is not part of the Bulk Electrical System, NERC compliance is not mandatory, thus SOCREP is not needed to comply with NERC standards:“NERC standards address the loss of one or more elements of the Bulk Electrical System (“BES”) and, according to the NERC Glossary of Terms, local networks are excludable from the BES…’”“.. the 138 kV SOC system meets the NERC “local network” criteria [and] is therefore not considered [to] be part of the BES, in which case NERC Standards …do not apply” and that such a conclusion is “consistent with FERC Order 693 which, among other things, addresses what elements of the transmission system are subject to the reliability standards adopted therein.”FRONTLINES provided factual evidence and legal argument that the South Orange County system is not BES, corroborated by CAISO’s admission that the transmission grid is not impacted significantly if the entire South Orange County system is dropped.The factual evidence and legal argument presented by FRONTLINES regarding the applicability of NERC standards to South Orange County were considered by the Commission:“FRONTLINES argues that the definition of a BES provided by NERC makes clearthat the South Orange County 138 kV network of distribution substations is a Local Network that is not part of the BES. Specifically, according to FRONTLINES, the inclusionary provisions of the BES definition similarly address elements and devices (such as the CAISO and SDGE cite), the plain and unambiguous language of these inclusionary provisions makes clear that they apply only to the devices specified and do not apply to the elements connected to such devices. FRONTLINES concludes that the 138-kV lines and seven distribution substations that comprise SDG&E’s South Orange County system are specifically not part of the BES and are therefore not subject to NERC reliability standards TPL-002-02b, TPL-003-0b, and TPL-004-0a.”“Furthering their argument, FRONTLINES states ‘If SOC were part of the BES, then SOC load loss occurring under a single P1 contingency could becategorized as ‘non-consequential’ load loss, and therefore limited to 75 MW ‘near term’ in accordance with page 18 of CAISO’s current planning standard.However, South Orange County is radially served by a 138kV local network via a single connection to the CAISO grid, and other than the 230kV bus and other equipment at Talega substation, SOC is not part of the Bulk Electric System.’ ”“We find based on the testimony presented by FRONTLINES over the course of this proceeding and based on the NERC Glossary of Terms that the South Orange County system is not part of the Bulk Electric System as defined by NERC, yet we acknowledge that the SOC system is under the CAISO’s control and by extension the CAISO’s planning standards which apply the NERCTPL-001-4 standard.”FRONTLINES’ arguments were considered by the Commission in various factual findings:“The South Orange County 138-kV system does not meet the NERC definition of BES.”“NERC reliability standards apply to the BES on a mandatory basis”.Violation of CAISO’s self-imposed 250 MW restriction on consequential loss of load is not in and of itself a NERC violation.FRONTLINES’ Testimony - Exhibit 400.1C at 3. FRONTLINES’ Testimony - Exhibit 400.1C at 4: Opening Brief at 3Reply Brief at 2-4. FRONTLINES’ Testimony Exhibit 400.1C at footnote 17. PD at 25-26APD at 29-30 and FN 37Revised PD at 25-26FRONTLINES discussion of the NERC Glossary of Terms is cited in the Proposed Decision (at 24), Alternative Proposed Decision (Footnote 37) and Revised proposed Decision (at 24), but it is too extensive to cite here.Revised Proposed Decision at 28Revised Proposed Decision at 29.Revised Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #3. Revised Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #4Revised Proposed Decision Conclusion of Law #2.Verified6. FRONTLINES’ Contributions To Scoping Issue 1–Project “Need” for Compliance with CAISO Standards.FRONTLINES advanced extensive factual evidence and legal argument showing that the CAISO Planning Standards are an issue in SDGE’s 138 kV South Orange County local network only because CAISO retains operational control over South Orange County and thus applies the CAISO Planning Standards to it. FRONTLINES explained that the determination of whether facilities belong under CAISO control turns on whether they are integrated into the grid, and that radial facilities such as the SOC 138 kV system are not integrated into the grid and should not be controlled by CAISO. FRONTLINES showed that CAISO’s Standards are applied to the SOC 138 kV system only through the contrivance of CAISO’s control over the SOC 138 kV system. It is also through the artifice of CAISO control that SOC is subject to the 250 MW load loss limit under CAISO Planning Standard 5 for P1 events.The Commission considered FRONTLINES factual evidence and legal argument prior to adopting D.16-12-064: “Because SOC is controlled by CAISO, it is subject to CAISO’s planning standards.. ..Additionally, the CAISO’s planning standards allow for up to 250 MW of consequential load shedding, or load that is directly connected to a faulted element”“The South Orange County 138-kV facilities are a local network under operational control of the CAISO,” “CAISO has applied the NERC TPL standards to facilities that are under its operational control through its Planning Standards.”FRONTLINES’ Reply Brief at 4FRONTLINES’ Reply Brief at 5FRONTLINES’ Comments on Proposed Decision at 2.Revised Proposed Decision at 28 Revised Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #2Revised Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #5 7. FRONTLINES’ Contributions To Scoping Issue 1–Project “Need” to address South Orange County load losses subject to reliability standards.FRONTLINES advanced extensive factual evidence and legal arguments which demonstrated the important distinction between “consequential” load loss and “non-consequential” load loss in South Orange County and the implication of this distinction as it pertains to a “project need” for the purposes of reliability compliance determinations.FRONTLINES explained that reliability standards permit consequential load loss under all contingency events. Under cross examination, FRONTLINES’ witness stated “South Orange County system is a local network that is radially supplied. Therefore, loss, load loss in South Orange County, is consequential load loss. And it is not a violation of NERC standards to have consequential load loss as a result of a loss of an element.”FRONTLINES’ cross examination of SDGE Witness Jontry placed in the record the fact that a contingency event which removes Talega from service results in consequential load loss in South Orange County: “Under those conditions that you're describing, typically for – I assume you're referring specifically to the Talega substation as it's currently configured. That condition would result in a consequential loss of all the load in South Orange County.FRONTLINES emphasized the important distinction between consequential and non-consequential load loss.FRONTLINES’ arguments were considered by the Commission prior to adopting D.16-12-064:“However, FRONTLINES points out that Footnote 12’s 75 MW limitation on load shedding only applies to nonconsequential load, and that the CAISO’s planning standards allow for up to 250 MW of consequential load shedding, or load that is directly connected to a faulted element.”“FRONTLINES contests this point, arguing that even if the South Orange County system were subject to the application of NERC standards, footnote B of TPL-002-0b would allow controlled load shedding of local network customers following the loss of an element supplying the affected area.”“This new [CAISO] language limits non-consequential load-drop under single contingencies to 75 MW. However, FRONTLINES points out that Footnote 12’s 75 MW limitation on load shedding only applies to non-consequential load, and that Page 8 of NERC Standard TPL-004-1 contains a new footnote b providing that “consequential load loss as well as generation loss is acceptable as a consequence of any event excluding P0.”“…we find that any load loss during the single contingency maintenance outage scenarios at Talega (described in Exhibit CAISO-502 at 6) is a direct consequence of the faulted element (consequential load loss), and is therefore acceptable under the current NERC standard TPL-001-4, under footnote b on Page 8. Thus we find there would be no violation of NERC standards, even if the standards were mandatory in this situation.”FRONTLINES’ arguments were also incorporated into various factual determinations that were considered by the Commission: “Loss of load due to a contingency during a maintenance outage at Talega is a direct consequence of the faulted element which is defined as consequential load loss.”“Consequential load loss at a level consistent with a contingency during a maintenance outage at Talega is acceptable under the current NERC standard TPL-001-4 under footnote b.”FRONTLINES’ Testimony (Exhibit 400.1C at 2 and 6) FRONTLINES’ Comments on Proposed Decision at 2 TR 1361 at 10-16TR 169 at 4-10FRONTLINES comments on Alternate Proposed Decision at 19 and 20. D.16-12-064 at 23 Revised Proposed Decision at 26.Revised Proposed Decision at 27-28.Revised Proposed Decision at 29Revised Proposed Decision Finding of Fact #7Revised Proposed DecisionConclusion of Law #1Verified8. FRONTLINES Contributions To Scoping Issue 1–Project “Need” to address load growth.Though the FEIR showed that South Orange County peak load dropped substantially after 2007 and was only 416 MW in 2013, FRONTLINES showed that SOC Load continued to remain below this level even after 2013.FRONTLINES demonstrated that peak SOC load in 2014 was only 415 MW, andFRONTLINES’ examination of SDGE witness Jontry provided the material factual evidence demonstrating that SDGE’s load forecasts were substantially overpredictive. These material facts placed in the record by FRONTLINES were relied upon by other intervenors.FRONTLINES’ examination of SDGE Witness Jontry culminated in his admission to ALJ Farrar that the 2015 peak SOC load was only 415 MW. FRONTLINES spotlighted the continuing non-growth in the South Orange County peak load to address whether SOCREP is needed to accommodate load growth: “SDGE’s load forecasts cannot be relied upon to accurately predict future conditions” and “the SOCRE Project is not demonstrably shown to be needed to address the majority of SDGE’s reliability concerns within (and even beyond) the 10 year planning horizon.”The Commission considered FRONTLINES’ material factual evidence prior to adopting D.16-12-064: “FRONTLINES notes ‘The CAISO approved the SOCRE Project in 2011 based on overload concerns in South Orange County that assume a 2020 Peak load of 525 MW. This peak load assumption is unrealistic and simply unbelievable, given that the 2015 Peak load in South Orange County was actually only 415 MW.’”“FRONTLINES goes on to note that the CAISO updated its Net Peak Loadforecast for South Orange County since approving the SOCRE Program in 2011,and now predicts a 446 MW peak load in 2024 and a 453 MW peak load in 2025.”“FRONTLINES identifies the January 2015 SDG&E forecast as unreliableboth because it assumed a 2023 peak SOC load of 481 MW which is higher than the CAISO’s most recent forecast, and because the SDG&E forecast was revised upward three months later to project a 3% higher 2023 peak SOC load of 494 MW, while the CAISO forecast was revised downward. FRONTLINES concludes that SDG&E’s inflated forecast resulted in SDG&E wrongly identifying numerous unlikely contingency events. Specifically, according to FRONTLINES, because SDG&E erroneously assumes a minimum 466 MW peak load level, the Category C overload concerns it predicts will not occur within the 10 year planning horizon, if at all”.“Given the above, we find SDG&E’s 2014 forecast excessive and inaccurate.”“No project is necessary based on existing demand forecasts and planning standards.”“there was significant debate over the course of the proceeding about whether the project is needed based on projected load growth for SOC.”“Demand forecasts do not demonstrate need for a project in South Orange County”FRONTLINES’ Exhibit 413 TR 178 – 193 ORA Opening Brief at 3 and FN4SJC Opening Brief at 7, FN 25, and FN 26TR 180 at 18TR 205 at 15Opening Brief at 8: Proposed Decision at 19 Proposed Decision at 20 and Alternate Proposed Decision at 19. Proposed Decision at 21 andAlternate Proposed Decision at20. Proposed Decision at 21.Revised Proposed Decision Conclusion of Law #3D.16-12-064 at 6 D.16-12-064 Finding of Fact #1.Verified9. FRONTLINES Contributions To Preserving a Robust and Comprehensive Record.FRONTLINES expended considerable effort defending against multiple motions filed by SDGE to strike virtually all of FRONTLINES’ testimony and moving to strike “Corrected” SDGE testimony that introduced new testimony after intervenor testimony was served. In each instance, the Commission concurred with FRONTLINES. SDGE moved to strike FRONTLINES’ Reply Testimony served May 26, 2015 alleging that FRONTLINES testimony addresses matters outside of the scope established for the SOCREP proceeding. FRONTLINES’ response on June 1, 2015 showed that every aspect of testimony was in direct rebuttal to SDGE’s own prepared testimony. The Commission concurred with FRONTLINES.SDGE again moved to strike sections 3-9 of FRONTLINES’ Reply Testimony served May 26, 2015 and all of FRONTLINES’ Supplemental Rebuttal testimony served October 19, 2015 based on a claim that FRONTLINES’ testimony violates California Law. The ALJ denied SDGE’s motion. SDGE filed a second motion to strike all of FRONTLINES’ Supplemental Rebuttal Testimony served October 19, 2015 based on a claim that FRONTLINES’ was not authorized to serve rebuttal testimony. A tentative ruling denying SDGE’s motion was issued by ALJ Farrar and it was finalized during the evidentiary hearings. SDGE moved to strike FRONTLINES’ corrected Reply Testimony claiming that FRONTLINES’ corrections were improper. This motion was resolved by a ruling issued during the evidentiary hearings and FRONTLINES’ corrections were not stricken.FRONTLINES moved to strike portions SDGE’s “Corrected” Prepared testimony, “Corrected” Supplemental testimony, and “Corrected” Rebuttal testimony which SDGE claimed involved only minor modifications but in actuality it included extensive and impermissible new testimony and entirely new sections of testimony. FRONTLINES prepared a compendium of these extensive “Corrections” and argued that they constituted new testimony that was a derivative of intervenor reply testimony and therefore substantially prejudiced intervenors.. The Commission agreed and ALJ Farrar issued a ruling which only permitted SDGE’s “Corrections” that were minor and/or typographical in nature. “The FRONTLINES Motion to Strike was discussed on the first day of hearings. The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the proffered testimony and determined that it went far beyond correcting typographical errors or updating numbers, and included more than twenty pages of new testimony. The new testimony was found to be beyond the corrections allowed by Commission Rule 13.8 and deemed prejudicial to other parties, as they were denied a meaningful opportunity to respond to the new testimony. The presiding ALJ then directed SDG&E to strike the additional new testimony but provided that SDG&E could resubmit its testimony with typographical error corrections and updated numbers.”SDGE motion filed May 27, 2015FRONTLINES reply filed June 1, 2015SDGE’s motion denied by ruling issued by ALJ Farrar June 4, 2015. First SDGE motion filed November 4, 2015Ruling issued electronically by ALJ Farrar on November 5, 2015. Second SDGE motion filed November 4, 2015.Ruling issued electronically by ALJ Farrar on November 5, 2015. TR 1303 at 20.SDGE motion filed December 4, 2015.ALJ Farrar Ruling December 3, 2015 [TR 1317 at 22].FRONTLINES Motion filed November 5, 2015TR 43 at 15 Proposed Decision at 12 ANDAlternate Proposed Decision at 12..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? Other parties were opposedto SOCREPVerifiedc.If so, provide name of other parties: The City of San Juan Capistrano, ORA (“SJC”) and ORA.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: FRONTLINES worked closely with other parties to avoid duplicating efforts. For instance, FRONTLINES shared discovery responses received from SDGE and CAISO with ORA. SDGE complained about this practice in an electronic mail sent to FRONTLINES which demanded that FRONTLINES stop sharing data request responses, but FRONTLINES continued doing so despite SDGE’s displeasure. FRONTLINES also shared information with ORA that became exhibits in this proceeding to avoid duplication in the record. FRONTLINES also had numerous and extensive conversations with ORA’s expert witness Charles Mee to ensure no overlap occurred between FRONTLINES’ and ORA’s testimony. The City of San Juan Capistrano (“SJC”) and ORA both opposed SOCREP, and to that extent, the positions of these parties were similar to FRONTLINES’. However, SJC, ORA and FRONTLINES focused on substantially different issues, and there was very little overlap in the testimony and arguments that were offered by these 3 parties. For instance, from inception, FRONTLINES advocated Trabuco Alternative J (see comments on CEQA Screening report) and the reconductoring “No Project” alternative. SJC supported Alternative F. ORA also supported Trabuco Alternative J, but the focus of FRONTLINES’ testimony differed from ORA’s in that it centered on siting issues, impacts to SCE’s Johanna- Ellis corridor, and demonstrating that the Trabuco 230 kV facilities can be easily accommodated on the site adjacent to the existing Trabuco distribution system [See FRONTLINES’ Rebuttal Testimony served Oct.?19, 2015]. Therefore, FRONTLINES’ testimony on Trabuco Alternative J differed from ORA’s and had very little overlap. Additionally, both FRONTLINES and ORA testified that South Orange County is a local network that is not subject to the NERC standards, however FRONTLINES’ testimony focused on FERC orders, the NERC Glossary of terms, the NERC definition of “Bulk Electric System” and the key distinction between consequential and non-consequential load losses (see pages 2-5 of FRONTLINES’ Reply testimony filed May 2015), therefore FRONTLINES testimony complemented, and did not overlap, ORA’s testimony. It was not happenstance that FRONTLINES’ and ORA’s testimony avoided overlap, rather it was the result of extensive collaboration and coordination. The record demonstrates that the factual evidence placed in the record by FRONTLINES, ORA and SJC was entirely complementary and not duplicative. With the exception of the NERC and CAISO standards, none of the 40 exhibits that FRONTLINES placed in the record are remotely similar to the exhibits moved into evidence by other parties. Additionally, the transcript of the evidentiary record demonstrates that the cross examinations conducted by SJC, ORA, and FRONTLINES covered different areas, and were entirely complementary. For instance, in relation to FRONTLINES’ testimony that overloads from “loop flow” would be eliminated by disconnecting Trabuco from the SCE line (FRONTLINES’ Rebuttal testimony at 20); it was ORA’s examination of CAISO Witness Sparks which confirmed that doing so by disconnecting the Trabuco transformers would eliminate these overloads [TR 344 at 2-12] and it was SJC’s examination of SDGE”s Witness Smith which underscored the fact that SDGE persistently sidestepped this solution (as noted in the Proposed Decision at 46). As another example, it was under FRONTLINES’ cross examination of SDGE witnesses which revealed that SOCREP creates voltage problems [TR 1139 – 1140] and that a superior alternative to SOCREP would be to provide SOC with a second power source located far from Talega [TR 58 and TR 1063]. These issues were only explored by FRONTLINES and did not duplicate the effort of any other party. Moreover, it was FRONTLINES’ Exhibit 413 which showed SOC load was still less than 416 MW in 2014, and it was FRONTLINES’ cross examination of SDGE’s Witness Jontry [TR 180 at 18] which culminated in his admission to ALJ Farrar that SOC load continued to remain below 416 MW in 2015 [TR 205 at 15]. Both SJC and ORA cited these facts (ORA Opening Brief at 2 and SJC Opening Brief at 7). The testimony, opening briefs and reply briefs proffered by FRONTLINES, ORA, and SJC reveals that all three parties had substantially different perspectives on the “need” for the SOCREP Project and the efficacy of various SOCREP Project alternatives which were complementary and non-duplicative. Even when FRONTLINES’ position became tightly distilled down into comments on various proposed decisions and alternate proposed decisions, it remained singularly distinctive, as evidenced by the extent to which FRONTLINES’ arguments are cited in the Proposed Decision, Revised Proposed Decision, and Alternate Decision. FRONTLINES submits that Commission should find that FRONTLINES took all reasonable steps to avoid duplication and, to the extent that there was any overlap, FRONTLINES’ work supplemented and complemented that of ORA and SJC.VerifiedAdditional Comments on Part II:#Intervenor’s CommentCPUC Discussion#2, #3, #4, #5, #6Regarding Items #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 identified above in Section A of Part II: Although the Commission did not adopt these elements of FRONTLINES’ recommendations, they were all recited and extensively considered in the Proposed Decision and the Revised Proposed Decision and the Alternate Proposed Decision issued in the SOCREP Proceeding (as evidenced by the citations provided). While it is recognized that proposed and alternate proposed decisions are not final decisions, the Commission does deliberate on them and carefully considers the parties positions that are set forth therein. The Commission has previously determined that, even if the Commission does not adopt any of the intervenor’s recommendations in a final decision or order, “compensation may be awarded when, in the judgment of the Commission, the customer’s participation otherwise substantially contributed to the decision or Order.” [D.0601003 at 4]. In determining whether a customer has “otherwise substantially contributed to a decision” the Commission considers the extent to which the customer contributed to proposed Decisions and Alternate Proposed Decisions. For instance: D.96-09-024 states “This reinforcement of TURN’s substantial contribution is also applicable in the instant case, since on some issues where TURN’s position was ultimately rejected by the Commission, this position was adopted either in the ALJ’s proposed decision, or the . . . alternate.” [D.96-09-024 at 19] D.92-08-030 states: “In cases where the Commission does not wholly adopt the customer's position, contribution to an ALJ’s proposed decision reinforces a substantial contribution to an order or decision.” [D.92-08-030 at 4].Citing both of the cases above, D.01-06-063 determined that TURN had made a substantial contribution to Proceeding A.99-03-049 because the Proposed Decision adopted TURN’s recommendations, even though the Proposed Decision was not adopted by the Commission.D.06-03-001 states “[The Commission] did not adopt UCAN’s ratemaking recommendations. However, the proposed decision of ALJ Long did adopt most of UCAN’s recommendations.” and “The Commission’s final decision does not adopt these [UCAN] recommendations. However, both the proposed and final decisions find that UCAN was the only party to examine not just whether the Wildfire costs were incremental to existing rates… but also whether SDG&E met its obligation to exercise reasonable control over its costs…”. D.05-08-014 adopted an SDGE Settlement over UCAN’s objections, but found that UCAN had nonetheless made a substantial contribution, stating: “UCAN made numerous significant recommendations that were all considered, in the two proposed decisions of ALJ Long and of the original assigned Commissioner, Carl Wood.” [D.05-08-014 at 7].The Commission has also opined that an intervenor can “make a valuable contribution by performing a reasonableness review to test the prudence of [a utility’s] decisions, procedures and actions.” [D.06-03-001 at 12]. As discussed in detail in Part IIIA below, FRONTLINES’ participation in the SOCREP Proceeding tested the efficacy of SDGE’s claim that SOCREP is needed to address thermal overload and maintenance outage concerns, and it tested the prudence of SDGE’s claim that $381 million is a reasonable cost to address such issues. Therefore, and in this regard, FRONTLINES made a valuable contribution to the SOCREP Proceeding in a manner consistent with the D.06-03-001 holding.#8Regarding item #8 identified above in Section A of Part II: D.16-12-064 asserts (on page 7) that “the record is clear that SDG&E’s projected load growth in SOC that may have initially driven this project in 2012 has not materialized”. Though the Proposed Decision shows that ORA, SJC, and FRONTLINES all contributed to different aspects of this conclusion (see pages 19-21 of the Proposed Decision), D.16-12-064 only cites the argument proffered by SJC’s Opening Brief. Notably, SJC’s argument cited by D.16-12-064 relies on FRONTLINES’ cross examination of SDGE Witness Jontry (FN 25&26. Therefore, the Commission should find that, at a minimum, FRONTLINES materially supplemented and contributed to SJC’s presentation cited by D.16-12-054 as the basis for concluding that “we find that no project is necessary to accommodate the projected load growth over the ten year forecast period” and as the basis for adopting Finding of Fact #1: “Demand forecasts do not demonstrate need for a project in South Orange County.” As such, and consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 1802.5, FRONTLINES’ contribution to this element of D.16-12-064 should be deemed fully eligible for compensation. #1, #7Regarding items #1 and #7 identified above in Section A of Part II; both of these elements of FRONTLINES contributions were adopted by D.16-12-064.#1 describes FRONTLINES’ contribution to the FEIR in recommending the Trabuco Alternative in 2014. This Alternative was identified by the FEIR as the “Environmentally Superior” Alternative, and certified as such by D.16-12-064.#7 Addresses FRONTLINES’ considerable contributions to the distinction between consequential and non-consequential load loss, and the implications of this distinction in determining compliance with applicable reliability standards. This was considered in D.16-12-064 at 23.#9Regarding item #9 in Section A of Part II; In every instance identified in #9, FRONTLINES position was upheld by the ALJ and ensured the development of a complete and robust record. In this regard, FRONTLINES contributed substantially to the SOCREP Proceeding. PART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:The SOCREP Proceeding was long, complex, and involved many challenging issues for the Commission and the parties. Two rounds of testimony were followed by evidentiary hearings that were initially estimated to last 3 days but instead spanned 3weeks. A Draft EIR was prepared, then modified and recirculated and even after that, errata were prepared. Two separate rounds of comments and reply comments on Proposed and Alternate Decisions followed by Oral Argument topped off a proceeding which lasted more than two years. The benefits of FRONTLINES’ participation in this proceeding are difficult to quantify due to the unusual “decision path” that was followed. As set forth in Section II (above), FRONTLINES’ participation focused on the areas of “project need” and “project alternatives”, and in these areas, FRONTLINES certainly assisted in the Commission’s “analysis or understanding of the issues” (as evidenced by the abundant citations to FRONTLINES’ material factual assertions and legal arguments embodied in the Proposed Decision, the Alternate Proposed Decision, and the Revised Proposed Decision) even if FRONTLINES’ arguments were unpersuasive in the Final Decision. Therefore, FRONTLINES demonstrably contributed to the development of a robust record. However pursuant to D.98-04-059, intervenors must demonstrate productivity by showing that the compensation that is sought for their participation bears a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through their participation. Typically, intervenors achieve this by assigning a dollar value to the benefits derived from their participation, and showing that their requested compensation is considerably less than the benefit value derived. FRONTLINES makes such a showing as follows:First, FRONTLINES proposed the Trabuco Alternative to eliminate all significant environmental impacts and address all reliability concerns in South Orange County [FRONTLINES’ comments on CEQA screening report]. The ALJ’s Proposed Decision endorsed FRONTLINES’ recommended configuration of the Trabuco Alternative with 2 transformers at Trabuco and two transformers at Talega all in a “breaker and a half” configuration [Proposed Decision at 49 and FN 107 citing FRONTLINES’ cross examination of SDGE Witness Iliev regarding the configuration of FRONTLINES Trabuco Alternative]. FRONTLINES’ estimated the cost of the Trabuco Alternative to be $91 million based on standardized cost parameters [Opening Brief at 50 and FRONTLINES’ Rebuttal Testimony at 17]. The Proposed Decision relied to a considerable extent on the material facts and legal arguments provided by FRONTLINES in the record (as set forth above in Section II). Had the Commission adopted the Proposed Decision, ratepayer costs would have been $91 million rather than the $381 million approved for SOCREP, so ratepayers would have saved $290 million. Thus, the cost of FRONTLINES’ participation in the SOCREP proceeding is infinitesimal compared to the $290 million in ratepayer benefits that would have been realized had the Proposed Decision been adopted. Second, FRONTLINES demonstrated that SOCREP was not needed to secure the SOC load under any contingency scenario other than a catastrophic loss of Talega because simple substation modifications would effect this purpose. [FRONTLINES’ Reply Testimony at 7-17 and Opening Brief at 39-47]. FRONTLINES’ estimated the cost of this reconductoring “No Project” Alternative to be $76 million based on SDGE’s own standardized cost parameters [Opening Brief at 51]. The ALJ’s Revised Proposed Decision found that SOCREP was not “needed” and on that basis, endorsed the “No Project” Alternative [Revised Proposed Decision Conclusion of Law #3.] The ALJ’s Revised Proposed Decision relied to a considerable extent on the material facts and legal arguments provided by FRONTLINES in the record (as set forth above in Section II). Had the Commission adopted the Revised Proposed Decision, ratepayer cost would have been $76 million rather than the $381 million approved for SOCREP, so ratepayers would have saved $305 million. Thus, the cost of FRONTLINES’ participation in the SOCREP proceeding is infinitesimal compared to the nearly $305 million in ratepayer benefits that would have been realized had the Revised Proposed Decision been adopted. In ascertaining the extent to which intervenor participation demonstrates productivity pursuant to D.98-04-059, the Commission has historically considered contributions made to proposed decisions as a reasonable basis for assigning value to the benefits derived from the intervenor’s participation [D.06-03-001, D.05-08-014]. Therefore, FRONTLINES’ substantial contribution to the Proposed Decision, the Alternate Proposed Decision, and the Revised Proposed Decision constitutes a showing of significant productivity in the SOCREP Proceeding.There were also significant unquantifiable benefits attached to FRONTLINES’ overall participation in the SOCREP Proceeding even though FRONTLINES’ recommendations were largely (though not entirely) rejected in D.16-12-064. FRONTLINES (and only FRONTLINES) conducted a detailed and independent technical analysis of all the thermal overload and maintenance outage scenarios posited by SDGE and CAISO in more than 400 pages of “first round” testimony (Exhibits 1.3, 2.2, 3.3, 502, 503 and 504 – not including attachments and exhibits) to clearly establish their root cause. Based on this technical analysis, FRONTLINES (and only FRONTLINES): Identified specific reconductoring and system upgrades that will eliminate all of these concerns and avoid the costly SOCREP project. [FRONTLINES’ Opening Brief at 39-47, Reply Testimony at 7-17] and by extension showed that the only justification for any sort of “project” in SOC would be to provide a second power source to the area; and Estimated the cost of this “No Project” alternative at $76 million based on SDGE’s own standardized cost parameters [Opening Brief at 51]. In short, FRONTLINES’ participation tested the efficacy of SDGE’s and CAISO’s claims that SOCREP is needed to address thermal overload and maintenance outage concerns, and it tested the prudence of SDGE’s claim that $381 million is a reasonable cost to address such issues. The Commission should conclude that FRONTLINES made a valuable contribution by performing a reasonableness review to test the prudence of SDGE’s and CAISO’s contentions.In light of the importance and complexity of the issues addressed,FRONTLINES’ role in developing both a robust record and an independent technical analysis of SDGE’s and CAISO’s claims, the unusual “decision path” that occurred, and FRONTLINES’ showing of the significant benefits accrued through FRONTLINES’ participation had either the Proposed Decision or Revised Proposed Decision been adopted, the Commission should find that FRONTLINES’ request for intervenor compensation bears a reasonable relation to the benefits to consumers. CPUC DiscussionVerifiedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed:FRONTLINES is only claiming technical hours that were expended by Jacqueline Ayer (FRONTLINES lead agent) on the issues regarding which FRONTLINES asserts it has made a substantial contribution, along with a small number of travel and general preparation hours necessary to participate in the proceeding. These issues cover the contributions listed in Section II above pertaining to the FEIR, Scoping Issues 1 &3, and motions/ responses to SDGE activities. The hours expended by Ms. Ayer on these issues between 2014 and 2017 are itemized in Attachment 2. FRONTLINES’ hours are reasonable given the duration of the Proceeding and the complexity of the issues. For example, beginning in the latter part of 2015 and throughout 2016, Ms. Ayer prepared 155 pages of detailed technical analysis in the form of Opening and Reply Briefs, comments and reply comments on Proposed and Alternate Proposed Decisions, and comments and reply comments on Revised Proposed and Revised Alternate Proposed Decisions. These analytical writings covered every aspect of SOCREP that was addressed over weeks of evidentiary hearings and more than 1400 pages of transcripts. Ms. Ayer expended approximately 500 hours in this effort, or just under 3 hours per page, which is very reasonable, particularly in light of the many, varied, and complex issues that were covered.In 2014, Ms. Ayer reviewed the CEQA Screening Report prepared by the Commission’s Energy Division, prepared detailed comments thereon, participated in the Prehearing Conference on November 19, negotiated a “Non-Disclosure Agreement” with SDGE, and prepared data requests and the NOI. For this effort, Ms. Ayer is requesting approximately 37 hours (less than 1 week) which is quite reasonable, given the extent of FRONTLINES’ Screening Report comments and the other activities. Similarly, in 2015, Ms. Ayer reviewed nearly 600 pages of testimony from SDGE and CAISO (not counting attachment exhibits), prepared more than 40 pages of Reply and Rebuttal Testimony, prepared 40 exhibits and 50 pages of cross examination prep questions and continuously participated in weeks of evidentiary hearing. Ms. Ayer’s 570 hours expended in this effort is equivalent to just 14 weeks, which is quite reasonable given the length, scope and extent of the testimony and evidentiary hearings.Approximately 50 hours were expended by Ms. Ayer traveling between the Antelope Valley and San Francisco on 5 separate occasions for the Prehearing Conference, the Evidentiary Hearings, and Oral Argument. Vehicle travel required 5 hours each way, and was deemed the quickest and least costly travel option, given the location of Antelope Valley in relation to San Francisco and lack of local airport service. FRONTLINES seeks compensation for this effort at one-half of Ms. Ayer’s rate.Ms. Ayer expended nearly 100 hours in 2015 preparing responses to various actions taken by SDGE, including motions to strike FRONTLINES’ testimony, addressing impermissible “corrections” to SDGE” testimony, and numerous data requests. FRONTLINES compensation claim regarding the latter is particularly reasonable, given that SDGE propounded 7 sets of data requests to FRONTLINES with more than 120 questions. In addition, FRONTLINES expended time in 2016 to prepare a response to SCE’s late-filed motion for party status.In 2017and the latter part of 2016, Ms. Ayer expended approximately 80 hours to prepare a 36 page, highly technical “Application for Rehearing” in the SOCREP proceeding. This effort resulted in a labor expenditure of just over 2 hours per page, which is again quite reasonable considering the detailed legal analysis regarding CEQA and the highly technical content. Throughout this proceeding, Ms. Ayer expended approximately 55 hours on general tasks necessary to participate in this proceeding. This is reasonable, considering that this proceeding spanned more than 26 months. FRONTLINES expended just over 2 hours per month on general tasks. This ICOMP request required 27 hours to prepare. This is reasonable, given the varied scope of the proceeding and the detail of the compliance requirements that are imposed.Verifiedc. Allocation of hours by issue:As shown in the spreadsheet provided as Attachment 2, Ms. Ayer’s hours allocated to the specific issues that are set forth above in Section II and to which FRONTLINES contributed substantially in this proceeding are approximately:Scoping Issue 1 - Project need: 26% (includes #5, 6, 7, 8 listed above )Scoping Issue 3 – Alternatives: 59% (includes #1, 2, 3, 4 listed above) Response to SDGE actions: 8% (includes #9 listed above)Travel 3% General Prep 4%VerifiedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $ J. Ayer 201437$140See comment 1$5,18031[A]$135$4,185.00 J. Ayer 2015755.75$140See comment 1$105,805755.75$135$102,026.25 J. Ayer 2016491.5$140See comment 1$68,740467.5[B]$140$65,450.00 J. Ayer 201757$140See comment 1$7,9800[B]$140$0.00 Subtotal: $ 187,705 Subtotal: $171,661.25 OTHER FEESItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $J. Ayer - travel201410$70See comment 2$70010$67.50$675.00J. Ayer - travel201530$70See comment 2$210030$67.50$2,025.00J. Ayer - travel201610$70See comment 2$70010$70$700.00 Subtotal: $ 3,500 Subtotal: $3,400.00INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $ J. Ayer 20146$706$67.50$405.00 J. Ayer 201727$70See comment 2$1,89027$70$1,890.00 Subtotal: $1,890 Subtotal: $2,295.00COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1HotelsSee Comment 3 and Attachment 3$1,591.92$1,591.9225 Round tripsSee Comment 4 and Attachment 3$1,890$0.00[C]3PhotocopiesSee Comment 5 and Attachment 3$275.40$275.39 TOTAL REQUEST:$ 196,852.32TOTAL AWARD: $179,223.56*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 ATTORNEY INFORMATIONC. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:ItemReasonATransfer of six hours of NOI preparation time to intervenor compensation hours.BAs Frontlines’ Re-hearing request is still currently under review, claims for hours related to them are pre-mature. Frontlines’ should submit another claim following a decision on the re-hearing request.CThe Commission does not compensate at the IRS mileage rate. Should intervenors provide receipts documenting gas usage, the Commission will compensate those costs.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 FACTForest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines has made a substantial contribution to D.16-12-064.The requested hourly rates for Forest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $179,223.56.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERForest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines shall be awarded $179,223.56.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, San Diego Gas and Electric Company shall pay Forest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines the total award. 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 April 27, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Forest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines ‘s request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated April 27, 2017, at San Francisco, California.MICHAEL PICKER PresidentCARLA J. PETERMANLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN CommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D1704037Modifies Decision? Contribution Decision(s):D1612064Proceeding(s):A1205020Author:ALJ FarrarPayer(s):San Diego Gas & Electric CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorClaim DateAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceForest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines (Frontlines)February 13, 2017$196,852.32$179,223.56N/AInappropriate costs, misallocated costs, non-adjudicated issues Advocate InformationFirst NameLast NameTypeIntervenorHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedJacquelineAyerExpertFrontlines$140.002014$135.00JacquelineAyerExpertFrontlines$140.002015$135.00JacquelineAyerExpertFrontlines$140.002016$140.00JacquelineAyerExpertFrontlines$140.002017$140.00(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download