Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?ALJ Division/nd3PROPOSED DECISIONAgenda ID #19910Decision _____________BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) for Approval of its 2016 Rate Design Window Proposals.Application 1609003DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 1807006Intervenor: Small Business Utility AdvocatesFor contribution to Decision (D.) 1807006Claimed: $93,099.59Awarded: $93,214.59Assigned Commissioner: Marybel Batjer Assigned ALJ: ALJ DivisionPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA.Brief description of Decision: Decision (D.) 1807006 approves Southern California Edison’s (SCE) 2016 Rate Design Window proposals to revise standard timeofuse (TOU) periods and seasons, implement Critical Peak Pricing (CPP) for certain customers, and revise realtimepricing (RTP) rates. Additionally, D.1807006 adopts a Settlement Agreement between SCE and Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) as reasonable, consistent with the law, and in the public interest. Finally, the decision rejects alternative proposals to offer CPP as an optional rather than a default rate to customers on its TOUGS1 and TOUPA3 rate schedules without prejudice.Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812:IntervenorCPUC VerificationTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§?1804(a)):1.Date of Prehearing Conference:December 8, 2016Verified2.Other specified date for NOI:N/A3.Date NOI filed:January 6, 2017Verified4.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.1609001Verified6.Date of ALJ ruling:October 27, 2017Verified7.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.1609001Verified10.Date of ALJ ruling:October 27, 2017Verified11.Based on another CPUC determination (specify):12.Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§?1804I):13.Identify Final Decision:D.1817006Verified14.Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: July 13, 2018Verified15.File date of compensation request:Sept. 11, 2018Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely? YesPART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONDid the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see §?1802(j), §?1803(a), §?1803.1(a) and D.9804059): Intervenor’sClaimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’sClaimed Contribution(s)CPUC DiscussionOverallThis Rate Design Window proceeding covered an array of issues associated with SCE’s proposed changes to Time of Use (TOU), Critical Peak Pricing (CPP), and Real Time Pricing (RTP) programs. Throughout the proceeding, SBUA argued that the proposed changes would be of high significance to small commercial customers, financially and otherwise, and that additional measures were required to protect this customer class. SBUA’s experts submitted testimony on a variety of issues impacting small businesses, and we addressed additional issues through our settlement negotiations with SCE. As discussed further below, SBUA advocated for certain improvements to SCE’s proposals, such as enhancing education and outreach to small businesses to understand and adjust to new TOU periods, adopting CPP as an optin alternative for small commercial customers, encouraging small business clean energy solutions, and expanding mitigation measures for small business ratepayers. SBUA entered into a settlement agreement with SCE to address many of SBUA’s concerns and as a compromise of contested issues between the parties (the SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement). In D.1807006, the Commission approved the SCE/SBUA Settlement in full and concluded it is “reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.” The Settlement Agreement describes in some detail the agreedupon outcomes between the settling parties, and the Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement contains additional background. SBUA submits that the Commission should find this Settlement Agreement, along with SBUA’s advocacy in testimony, briefs, and comments, as reflective of SBUA’s substantial contributions to this proceeding. Additional specifics on SBUA’s advocacy are detailed below. References to Final Decision: D.1807006 (Final Decision), pp. 8486 (summary of adopted settlement between SBUA and SCE, addressing a number of SBUA issues). Findings of Fact, Paragraph 24, p. 94 (“The Settlement Agreement between SCE and SBUA is reasonable and its provisions offer benefits for small businesses.”). Conclusions of Law, Paragraph 14, p. 95 (“The Settlement Agreement between SCE and SBUA is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.”). Order, Paragraph 4, p. 96 (“The August 24, 2017 Joint Motion of Southern California Edison Company and Small Business Utility Advocates for Adoption of Settlement Agreement is granted, and the Settlement Agreement attached to the Settlement Motion is approved.”). References to Claimant’s Presentations:Settlement Agreement Among Small Business Utility Advocates and Southern California Edison (Aug. 24, 2017) (the SCESBUA Settlement Agreement). Joint Motion of Southern California Edison Company and Small Business Utility Advocates for Adoption of Settlement Agreement (Aug. 24, 2017) (Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement).SCESBUA Joint Stipulation Resolving Issues in SCE 2016 RDW Proceeding (Aug. 17, 2017); see also Exhibit SCESBUA1 (stipulation entered into record).SBUA Opening Testimony (April 28, 2017, errata filed May 26, 2017) (analyzing small business concerns and making recommendations for changes and mitigation measures).SBUA Rebuttal Testimony (June 9, 2017).See also SBUA Opening Comments on Proposed Decision (June 11, 2018), pp. 35 (requesting that the Commission to adopt the SCESBUA Settlement Agreement in full).VerifiedTOU Rate Design and Expanding ME&O for Small Businesses Throughout the proceeding SBUA maintained that SCE must substantially improve its marketing, education and outreach (ME&O) efforts to ensure small business customers understand the new rate structures. SBUA experts presented evidence that the new TOU rates will be impactful, both because these rates have not changed in many years, and because while many small businesses operate during the day and may benefit from changes, others, such as restaurants and bars, are more likely to be open during the evening hours when SCE is proposing to raise rates.SBUA generally agreed with SCE’s 49 p.m. “on peak” TOU period; however, SBUA’s experts testified that SCE must substantially improve its ME&O efforts to ensure small business customers understand the new rate structures and are able to properly adjust to them. The SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement addressed SBUA’s concerns with commitments by SCE to fully explore and improve on ME&O measures for small businesses before the new TOU and CPP rate structures come into effect. The Commission’s adoption of the Settlement Agreement thereby advances the goal of better educating small business customers and preparing them to adapt to the new TOU and CPP periods.Although not part of the instant proceeding, the settling parties have been collaborating in A.1706030 (SCE’ GRC II) to implement the SBUA/SCE Settlement Agreement and cement its benefits for small commercial customers. See A.1706030, Exh. SCE17 (Nov. 1, 2017) (supplemental testimony with expanded ME&O plan for small business customers, focusing on the changing TOU periods and the implementation of default CPP for small business customers); Motion to Adopt Residential and Small Commercial Settlement Agreement (July 30, 2018), Att. A, p. A29 (proposed small commercial rate design includes adoption of enhanced ME&O provisions from Exh. SCE17).References to Final Decision: Final Decision, p. 85 (adopting Article 2 of the SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement regarding ME&O measures to ensure small business customers understand new rate structures). Findings of Fact, Paragraph 24, p. 94 (adopting Settlement Agreement as reasonable and beneficial to small businesses). Conclusions of Law, Paragraph 14, p. 95 (Settlement Agreement is in the public interest). Order, Paragraph 4, p. 96 (approving Joint Motion to adopt Settlement Agreement). References to Claimant’s Presentations:SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement (Aug. 24, 2017), p. A3 (provisions regarding expanding ME&O to small business customers). SBUA Opening Testimony (April 28, 2017), pp. 1524 (SBUA’s detailed recommendations on ME&O improvements and importance of outreach to small businesses).SBUA Rebuttal Testimony (June 9, 2017), pp. 56 (emphasizing importance of ME&O relative to other parties’ positions).See also Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement (Aug. 24, 2017).See also SBUA Opening Comments on Proposed Decision (June 11, 2018), pp. 35 (requesting the Commission to explicitly adopt the SCESBUA Settlement Agreement).Verified2. Additional Mitigation Measures for Small Businesses SBUA advocated for SCE to take additional steps to mitigate the impacts of new rate design proposals. SBUA argued for SCE to mitigate by: exploring new rate structures for GS1 customers that wish to engage in distributed generation (DG) or energy storage customers; further promoting clean energy use by small business customers; and expanding the eligibility of small business to participate in smallscale energy storage under the Commission’s SelfGeneration Incentive Program (SGIP).The terms of the SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement implement several mitigation measures. Under those terms, SCE agreed to submit testimony in its pending GRC Phase 2 to explore an alternative rate structure specifically tied to GS1 DG and Storage customers in light of the changing TOU periods and the parties agreed to work collaboratively in the GRC II proceeding to further explore promoting clean energy solutions for small businesses, including with potential financial and nonfinancial incentives as well as enhanced education, training and technical assistance. The Commission’s adoption of the Settlement Agreement confers significant mitigation benefits for the small business customer class to assist these ratepayers in adapting to new TOU and CPP rate changes.Moreover, the benefits of the SCESBUA Settlement Agreement are being leveraged for small businesses in other proceedings. For example, in SCE’s GRC II, SBUA entered a proposed settlement that, pending Commission approval, will adopt a new storage rate for small commercial customers, called TOUGS1 (Option ES). See A.1706030, Motion to Adopt Residential and Small Commercial Settlement Agreement (July 30, 2018), p. 18 (establishment of new TOUGS1 (Option ES). This rate will create incentives for small commercial customers, including those eligible for SGIP, to engage in energy storage), see Att. A, pp. A25 – A26 (discussing Option E rate). SBUA also is negotiating with other utilities in other proceedings to increase small business involvement in SGIP.References to Final Decision: Final Decision, p. 85 (adopting Article 3 and Article 4 of SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement regarding Alternative Rate Structures for Small Businesses (Art. 3) and Additional Steps to Address the Impacts of SCE’s New Rate Structures on Small Business Customers (Art. 4)). Findings of Fact, Paragraph 24, p. 94 (adopting Settlement Agreement as reasonable and beneficial to small businesses). Conclusions of Law, Paragraph 14, p. 95 (Settlement Agreement is in the public interest). Order, Paragraph 4, p. 96 (approving Joint Motion to adopt Settlement Agreement). References to Claimant’s Presentations:SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement (Aug. 24, 2017), pp. A4 –A5 (proposals related to new rate design and clean energy). SBUA Opening Testimony (April 28, 2017), pp. 2734 (the Commission should require SCE to take additional steps to mitigate TOU and CPP impacts, including by promoting clean energy and exploring new rates for GS1 customers).See SBUA Rebuttal Testimony (June 9, 2017), pp. 78 (several parties support efforts to ensure that rate changes do not hamper California’s clean energy objectives).See also Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement Agreement (Aug. 24, 2017).See also SBUA Opening Comments on Proposed Decision (June 11, 2018), pp. 35 (requesting the Commission to explicitly adopt the SCESBUA Settlement Agreement).Verified3. Other Issues (Optout CPP for Small Commercial Customers / Timing of Rate Changes)SBUA consistently supported SCE’s alternative proposal to offer CPP as an optional rather than a default rate to customers on its TOUGS1 rate schedules. SBUA submitted analysis in testimony and argued in briefing that TOUGS1 customers would benefit greatly if they were not automatically enrolled in the revised CPP program, but rather encouraged to optin. Although the Commission did not adopt SBUA’s position on the optin CPP issue, SBUA submits that its voice on this issue was essential advocacy for small businesses, and SBUA’s involvement enriched the record of customer participation. See, e.g., D.0804004, pp. 56 (finding substantial contributions from TURN’s “unique perspective” that enriched the record, even though the claims at issue were ultimately unsuccessful).Further, SBUA posited that if the Commission were to proceed with mandatory default CPP for small businesses, it was even more critical that SCE undertake a robust and measurable outreach campaign to ensure small business customers are familiar with CPP and equipped to participate and minimize their utility costs, or opt out. Therefore, the SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement with its enhanced ME&O measures is valuable to help mitigate the impacts of the Commission’s decision to implement mandatory default transition to CPP.SBUA spent relatively smaller amounts of time on delaying the implementation of TOU rates changes until the new rates are implemented in SCE’s GRC II proceeding. SBUA argued that SCE should delay new TOU rates until the next GRC Phase 2 to avoid confusion by small business ratepayers. SBUA experts explained that delaying the rates would maintain simplicity and promote customer acceptance and understanding since small businesses would only have to make one set of adjustments to new rates. In rebuttal testimony, SCE agreed to a single February 2019 implementation date for both proceedings.References to Final Decision: Final Decision, p. 88 (SBUA argues that CPP for TOUGS1 customers should be an optin program, rather than require default enrollment), p. 91 (the Commission acknowledges SBUA’s position but denies the request without prejudice to petitioning for optin CPP in other proceedings).Final Decision, pp. 6465 (Commission adopts the revised SCE proposal to delay implementation of rate changes, as supported by SBUA and several other parties). Conclusions of Law, Paragraph 15, p. 95 (rates and tariff modifications shall be implemented concurrently with any rate changes adopted in SCE’s GRC II) proceeding). Order, Paragraph 2, p. 96 (implementation of rates changes to be concurrent with rate changes in GRC II proceeding). References to Claimant’s Presentations:SBUA Opening Testimony (April 28, 2017), pp. 2427 (the Commission should adopt SCE’s alternative proposal for small business customers to optin to CPP), p. 27 (if the Commission approves mandatory CPP for small businesses, it is even more critical that SCE undertake a robust and measurable outreach campaign to ensure small business customers are familiar with CPP). SBUA Opening Testimony (April 28, 2017), p. 24 (the Commission should delay the transition to new rates until the new rates are implemented in the GRC II “to avoid customer confusion and dissatisfaction”).SBUA’s Opening Brief (Sept. 8, 2018), pp. 47(optin to CPP will best serve the unique needs of small business customers while advancing the purpose behind CPP to change customers’ energy usage during peak periods).SBUA Opening Comments on Proposed Decision (June 11, 2018), pp. 56 (the Commission should adopt SCE’s alternative proposal to provide optin CPP for TOUGS1 customers).See also SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement (Aug. 24, 2017) (enhanced marketing and outreach to help mitigate mandatory rate changes for small businesses).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?YesYesb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? YesYesc.If so, provide name of other parties: The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), California Solar Energy Industries Association (CALSEIA), Agricultural Energy Consumers Association (AECA), Farm Bureau California, Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), the California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA), Energy Users Forum (EUF), Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA), Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Renewable Energy Water Districts (REWD) were all parties to the proceeding.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: SBUA sought to reduce overlap of efforts by presenting unique perspectives on the concerns of small commercial customers as a group as opposed to other customer classes. SBUA representatives engaged in multiparty discussions, including with ORA and other intervenors. This included SBUA’s attendance and engagement in allparty settlement discussions, and SBUA counsel reaching out to other parties to inquire about coordinating positions – for example, see H. Crystal time entries on March 16, 2017 reflecting a teleconference with CALSEIA to discuss consolidation on issues, and entries on April 2 and 10, 2017, reflecting emails to ORA similarly seeking to consolidate positions on issues – in order to identify areas of overlap and minimize repetitive comments. SBUA took all reasonable steps throughout the proceeding to avoid unnecessary duplication and coordinate its efforts with other parties.Any duplication that may have occurred here was incidental, and SBUA’s participation in that regard was in addition to but not duplicative of the arguments and evidence presented by other parties. Further, in a proceeding involving multiple participants, the Commission has recognized it is virtually impossible for any party to completely avoid some duplication of the work of other parties. In this case, SBUA took all reasonable steps to keep such duplication to a minimum.Noted. SBUA took reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary duplicationPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):CPUC DiscussionIntervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: SBUA’s main objective for the proceeding was to protect and advance the interests of small commercial customers of bundled electricity. In this proceeding, SBUA actively participated throughout the process by submitting four sets of data requests, submitting opening and rebuttal testimony, engaging in detailed settlement negotiations with SCE, providing opening and reply briefs, drafting efforts and pleadings that led to the approval of the SCE/SBUA Settlement Agreement, and commenting on the Proposed Decision. The settlement is beneficial because it reaches a reasonable compromise among SCE and small business interests. The Commission adopted the settlement, which includes numerous provisions that benefit small commercial customers. Given the importance of TOU, CPP, and rate design for small commercial customers, it is reasonable for SBUA to have participated on behalf of this customer class. There will be qualitative benefits for small business ratepayers based on the issues and matters SBUA has pursued, although precise quantitative dollar values are difficult to attribute. The settlement also sets the foundation to provide benefits to small businesses ratepayers in SCE’s GRC, Phase 2 with the exploration and adoption of new storage rates and enhanced ME&O (as discussed above). For these reasons, the Commission should find that SBUA’s efforts here have been valuable.In assessing SBUA’s substantial contribution, the Commission also should factor its desire to encourage participation of a broad range of customer interests and policies encouraging settlement. The Commission finds claim of costs as reasonable.b.Reasonableness of hours claimed: SBUA primarily devoted the resources of two attorneys and two experts to address key issues in this proceeding. Two attorneys devoted substantial time to this proceeding. Howard Crystal conducted research, submitted data requests, edited and coordinated testimony with experts, and collaborated with other parties in the proceeding to develop recommendations designed to benefit small businesses. Mr.?Crystal’s timesheets reflect this time commitment and the role played by SBUA in advocating for small business interests. He devoted 86.8 hours to the proceeding, or a total of slightly over two weeks worth of time. SBUA attorney James Birkelund also worked on this proceeding. Mr.?Birkelund was active throughout the proceeding and devoted 93.0 hours, equivalent to roughly two weeks and 1.5 days of time. Mr.?Birkelund analyzed SCE’s Application and developed and drafted arguments to increase the involvement of, and benefits to, small businesses, and was involved in extensive negotiations to reach the SBUASCE Settlement. Mr.?Birkelund played a critical role in providing strategic guidance and advice relating to process and development of SBUA’s positions and arguments. Attorney Kathryn Kriozere was assigned to different proceedings at the PUC on behalf of SBUA (energy efficiency proceedings) but assisted in this case due to scheduling conflicts of other attorneys and spent 6 hours of time to prepare for and attend hearings. Finally, attorney and SBUA Board Member Lillian Rafii prepared for and attended the prehearing conference; however, SBUA is not seeking compensation for her time. Mr.?Crystal and Mr.?Birkelund avoided unnecessary duplication and worked together efficiently. Both were involved in researching and analyzing small business issues, bringing their own knowledge and expertise, and were mindful to allocate attorney tasks efficiently. For example, only one attorney joined settlement calls; only one attorney took the lead on working with the experts; and only a relatively small percentage of hours reflect internal and external meetings involving more than one SBUA attorney. Mr.?Crystal and Mr.?Birkelund had differing responsibilities in settlement negotiations, drafting briefs, and the implementation of SBUA’s settlement strategy for this proceeding, and each was an active participant, bringing his particular knowledge and expertise to bear on the discussions. Two SBUA witness experts, Amy Macuax and Daniela Laakso, submitted opening and rebuttal testimony. SBUA’s experts analyzed the Application and other parties’ rate design proposals and played an instrumental role in identifying and promoting small commercial customer interests in this proceeding. SBUA seeks compensation for 20.1 hours of Ms.?Macaux’s time. SBUA is waiving all time for Daniela Laakso, who cosponsored SBUA’s expert report and participated while also serving as an SBUA Board Member. Because SBUA is not seeking any compensation for her time, this adds to the reasonableness of the total hours claimed by SBUA in this proceeding.SBUA has omitted certain time entries from its billing records that reflect potentially duplicative activities. These deductions include instances involving certain internal conferences or emails, for which SBUA has submitted time entries for only one attorney or expert. The attached time records reflect these deductions; for example, where there is a time entry from one attorney or expert showing that a meeting took place, but there is no corresponding entry from the other attorney or expert, this is because the corresponding entry was omitted. SBUA requests that the Commission recognize that the allocation of our recorded attorney and expert hours in this proceeding is reasonable in the context of the level of effort required to participate in a rate design proceeding and reach settled resolutions, and therefore, SBUA seeks compensation for all of the hours recorded by our attorneys and experts (excepting Ms.?Laakso’s hours) and included in this request.The Commission finds hours claimed as reasonable.c.Allocation of hours by issue: SBUA has assigned the following issue codes:TOU Rate Design and Expanding ME&O to Small Businesses – 75.1 hours or 36%Additional Mitigation Measures for Small Businesses – 75.2 hours or 36%Other Issues (Optout CPP for Small Commercial Customers / Timing of Rate Change) – 44.5 hours or 21%General Participation – 12.2 hours or 6%SBUA submits that the categories above are well defined to allow SBUA to accurately assign hours to various tasks in its time entries. Should the Commission wish to see different information on this point or some other breakdown of SBUA’s hourly work, SBUA requests that we be so informed and provided an opportunity supplement this request accordingly. SBUA submits that all of the hours claimed were reasonably and efficiently expended and should be fully compensated.The Commission finds allocation of hours as reasonable.Specific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Howard Crystal201614.9$460.00See Comment 1 below $6,85414.9$460.00$6,854.00Howard Crystal201768.1$470.00As above$32,00768.1$470.00$32,007.00Howard Crystal20183.8$480.00As above$1,8243.8$480.00$1,824.00James Birkelund201620.2$440.00D.1808011$8,88820.2$440.00$8,888.00James Birkelund201763.7$450.00D.1807036; D.1808011$28,66563.7$450.00$28,665.00James Birkelund20189.1$460.00D.1807036 $4,186 9.1$460.00$4,186.00Amy Macaux20161.6$165.00D.1512042 and Comment 2 below $2641.6$165.00$264.00Amy Macaux201718.8$170.00As above$3,19618.8$170.00$3,196.00Daniela Laakso2016Waived by SBUAN/AN/A$0N/AN/A$0.00Kathryn Kriozere20176.0$230.00D.1808084$1,3806.0$230.00$1,380.00Subtotal: $87,264.00Subtotal: $87,264.00INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Howard Crystal2016.5$230.0050% of 2016?rate$115.5$230.00$115.00Howard Crystal2017.9$235.0050% of 2017?rate$211.5.9$235.00$211.50Howard Crystal20184.2$240.0050% of 2018?rate$1,0084.2$240.00$1,008.00James Birkelund 20161.3$220.0050% of 2016?rate$2861.3$220.00$286.00James Birkelund 20174.7$225.0050% of 2017?rate$1,057.54.7$225.00$1,057.50James Birkelund201813.2$230.0050% of 2018?rate$3,03613.2$230.00$3,036.00Subtotal: $5,599Subtotal: $5,714.00[1]COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1.Expert ExpensesProduction and mailing costs for expert reports$236.59$236.592.SBUA Internal Expenses (printing, mailing, legal research)Waived.$0.00$0.00Subtotal: $236.59Subtotal: $236.59TOTAL REQUEST: $93,099.59TOTAL AWARD: $93,214.59 *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 explanationHoward?M. CrystalAdmitted (Massachusetts, 1994; Washington D.C., 1995) Mass. Bar No. 565463; D.C. Bar No. 446189. While Mr.?Crystal is licensed in Massachusetts and D.C., not CA, he practices in California courts and administrative tribunals, and the Commission has explicitly decided that attorneys admitted in other states, including Massachusetts, with similar backgrounds and experience to Mr.?Crystal are eligible for compensation as an attorney. See D.1703006, p. 16 (awarding compensation to attorney Charles Harak admitted in MA); see also D.1410023, p. 23, D.1506012, 1718 & Appendix. Mr.?Crystal, for example, has previously appeared and participated in the following Cases in the Northern District of California: 04cv04448SC; 08cv04248SC; 08cv04595WHA; 11cv00958SI; 11cv02760LB; 13cv01385VC; 03cv03400PJH. He has also litigated in the Central District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. NoJames?M. BirkelundMarch 2000206328NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/CommentComment 1Hourly Rate for Howard CrystalSBUA seeks an hourly rate for the work of senior counsel Howard Crystal of $460 for his work in 2016. Mr.?Crystal’s requested compensation “take[s] into consideration the market rates paid to persons of comparable training and experience who offer similar services,” see PUC §?1806, is within the established 2016 range of rates for his level of experience, and is in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines in D.0511031. Mr.?Crystal received his J.D. and started working as a law clerk for a Superior Court Judge in 1993. He joined a law firm in 1994 and in 2016 he was in his 21st year of legal experience. For 2016, the PUC compensated attorneys with 13+ yrs. Of experience in the range of $320$575 per hour. Resolution ALJ329. Mr.?Crystal’s requested rate is reasonable given his 25 years of legal experience.Mr.?Crystal has his own law practice focusing on energy and environmental matters and has also joined the Center for Biological Diversity as a senior environmental attorney. His legal profile is included in Attachment 5. Mr.?Crystal graduated Magnacumlaude from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1993. His experience as an energy and environmental attorney is broad and includes: (a) a recent lawsuit against the Tennessee Valley Authority concerning the environmental impacts of the agency’s new electricity rate structure, Center for Biological Div. v. TVA, No. 1801446 (N.D. Ala.); (b) publication of an article concerning net metering and utility ratesetting for solar customers (Fairly Compensating Sun Power: Challenges to Rooftop Solar Development, available at ; (c) advocating for VA Sun (), a solar energy nonprofit, concerning utility rate issues in Virginia; and (d) extensive federal court litigation over Department of Energy programs and projects, including, e.g., (i) the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (see, e.g., NRDC v. Abraham, 223 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D.D.C. 2002)); (ii) the Bush Administration’s “Energy Task Force” (see NRDC v. Dep’t of Energy, 310 F. Supp. 2d 271 (D.D.C. 2003)); and (iii) the remediation of nuclear energy testing facilities such as the Santa Susana Laboratory in Simi Valley, California (see NRDC v. DOE , 2007 WL 1302498(N.D. Cal. 2007)). Mr.?Crystal frequently practices in federal and state courts and before administrative agencies, including in California. Mr.?Crystal has also served for more than five years as an Adjunct Professor at George Washington University Law School and has also taught at Georgetown University Law Center.The reasonableness of the $460 rate is confirmed when compared to the rates the Commission has approved for other attorneys with comparable qualifications and experience in the energy industry and administrative proceedings. See?PUC §?1806; guidelines in D.0511031. For example, Robert Finkelstein, an attorney at TURN admitted to the bar in 1990 (he has 3 years more experience that Mr.?Crystal) was awarded a rate of $490 per hour in back in 2013 when his years of experience were the same as Mr.?Crystal in 2016. D.09003018. Rates have increased over time and Mr.?Crystal with 21 years of legal experience in 2016 (since starting his legal career in 1993) is requesting a considerably lower rate at $460 per hour than was awarded to Ms.?Finkelstein in 2013 in D.09003018.In 2017, SBUA’s request to increase Mr.?Crystal’s hourly rate is due to the Commission approved CostofLiving Adjustment (COLA) adopted by Resolution ALJ345. In accordance with the Resolution, Mr.?Crystal’s request for rates in 2017 hourly rates have been raised to $470 per hour to reflect the 2.14% COLA for intervenor hourly rates. For 2017, the PUC compensated attorneys with 13+ yrs. Of experience in the range of $325$585 per hour. Resolution ALJ345. Similarly, in 2018, SBUA’s request to increase Mr.?Crystal’s hourly rate to $480 per hour is due to the Commission approved COLA adopted by Resolution ALJ352 to reflect the 2.30% COLA for intervenor hourly rates in Resolution ALJ352. For 2018, the PUC compensated attorneys with 13+ yrs. Of experience in the range of $340$600 per ment 2Hourly Rate for Amy MacauxSBUA seeks an hourly rate for the work of expert Amy Macaux of $165 for her work in 2016. The Commission in D.1512042 previously set an hourly rate of $120 for Amy Macaux for her 201415 work in the capacity as a paralegal. Here, SBUA requests that the Commission set a rate for Ms.?Macaux in her capacity as an expert. Ms.?Macaux qualifications as an expert are submitted as Attachment 6. She is not new to PUC proceedings or small business issues. Along with having worked with SBUA on a number of Commission proceedings since 2012 (in the capacity as a paralegal), her qualifications to submit expert testimony are well founded from other experiences. Ms.?Macaux has significant, relevant experience having previously worked as a Program Associate at the Energy Foundation in its Power Program in San Francisco as well as a Program Coordinator at the Desert Research Institute (DRI), the environmental research arm of the Nevada System of Higher Education, where her work included matters related to energy and utility issues. Ms Macaux’s requested compensation “take[s] into consideration the market rates paid to persons of comparable training and experience who offer similar services,” see PUC §?1806, is within the established 2016 range of rates for her level of experience and is in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines in D.0511031. For 2016, the PUC compensated experts with 06 yrs. Of experience in the range of $140205 per hour. Resolution ALJ329. In 2017, SBUA’s request to increase Ms.?Macaux’s hourly rate is due to the Commission approved COLA adopted by Resolution ALJ345. In accordance with the Resolution, Ms.?Macaux’s request for rates in 2017 hourly rates have been raised to $170 per hour to reflect the 2.14% COLA for intervenor hourly rates. For 2017, the PUC compensated attorneys with 06 yrs. Of experience in the range of $145$210 per hour. Resolution ALJ345. Comment 3Daniela Laakso also served as an SBUA expert and cosponsored SBUA’s testimony. Ms.?Laakso is an attorney and 2014 graduate from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, California and has extensive experience (6 years) as a Board Member at SBUA. She served on SBUA’s Board of Directors from 20122018. In that capacity, she advised and has assisted SBUA to develop its various policy and expert positions before the Commission. Because SBUA is waiving the hours of Daniela Laakso, we elect to not request the Commission to set a rate for her at this time. Attachment 1Howard Crystal Time SheetsAttachment 2James Birkelund Time SheetsAttachment 3Amy Macaux Time SheetsAttachment 4Kathryn Kriozere Time SheetsAttachment 5Resume of Howard CrystalAttachment 6Qualifications of Amy MacauxAttachment 7Expert Expenses (receipts for $13.60 plus $1.40 plus $221.59 = total of $236.59)CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1] Arithmetic ErrorWe corrected Icomp preparation calculation subtotal from $5,599 to $5,714.00.Adoption of Requested Hourly RatesThe Commission adopts requested hourly rates for Crystal, Macaux and Laakso as reasonable.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))Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim?NoComment Period: Was the 30day comment period waived (see?Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTSmall Business Utility Advocates has made a substantial contribution to D.1807006.The requested hourly rates for Small Business Utility Advocates’ 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 $93,214.59.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812.ORDERSmall Business Utility Advocates shall be awarded $93,214.59.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Southern California Edison Company shall pay Small Business Utility Advocates the total award. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, threemonth nonfinancial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning November 25, 2018, the 75th day after the filing of Small Business Utility Advocates’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):D1807006Proceeding(s):A1609003Author:ALJ DivisionPayer(s):Southern California Edison CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceSmall Business Utility AdvocatesSept. 11, 2018$93,099.59$93,214.59N/AN/AHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedHoward CrystalAttorney$4602016$460Howard CrystalAttorney$4702017$470Howard CrystalAttorney$4802018$480JamesBirkelundAttorney$4402016$440JamesBirkelundAttorney$4502017$450JamesBirkelundAttorney$4602018$460KathrynKriozereAttorney$2302017$230Amy MacauxExpert$1652016$165Amy MacauxExpert$1702017$170(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download