Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?CR2/KJB/nd3 Date of Issuance: 9/28/2020Decision 20-09-033 September 24, 2020BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Emergency Disaster Relief Program.Rulemaking 1803011DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISIONS (D.) 1808004, D.1907015, AND D.1908025Intervenor: The Utility Reform NetworkFor contribution to Decision (D.) 1808004, D.1907015, and D.1908025.Claimed: $123,137.95Awarded: $123,137.95Assigned Commissioner: Marybel BatjerAssigned ALJs: Colin Rizzo and Karl BemesderferPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: This compensation request covers three Commission decisions related to the policies, procedures, and practices of the Commission’s utility customer disaster relief measures. D.1808004 adopts interim disaster relief measures following a Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency and where utility service was affected. D.1907015 adopts permanent disaster relief measures for energy and water utility customers. D.1908025 adopts permanent disaster relief measures for communications utility customers.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:May 7, 2018Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI:N/A 3. Date NOI filed:June 6, 2018Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed?YesShowing of eligible customer status (§?1802(b) or eligible local government entity status(§§?1802(d), 1802.4): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:I.1508019Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:Nov. 8, 2017Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status?YesShowing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:I.1508019Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:Nov. 8, 2017Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):12 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§?1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.1908025Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: Aug. 23, 2019Verified15. File date of compensation request:Oct. 22, 2019Verified16. 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’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC DiscussionBackgroundIn 2017, devastating wildfires—some the worst this state has seen—wreaked havoc throughout the state. In response, “[o]n October 24, 2017, The Utility Reform Network submitted a letter to the Commissioners and Executive Director requesting that the Commission take action to assist the wildfire victims. . . .” Using TURN’s letter as a starting point, the Commission ordered Resolutions M4833 (dated November 13, 2017) and M4835 (dated January 12, 2018), requiring utility companies “to take reasonable and necessary steps to assist Californians affected by a series of devastating wildfires in Northern and Southern California.” In March 2018, the Commission opened this Rulemaking to “explore[] options for replacing the Resolution process employed after the recent wildfires with a permanent set of postdisaster consumer protection measures.” In this phase of the proceeding, with the input of TURN and other intervenors, the Commission adopted the disaster relief measures in Resolutions M4833 and M4835 as interim rules in Decision 1808004. The Assigned Commissioner prioritized stakeholder participation through workshops to develop and refine permanent disaster relief rules, where TURN and other active parties participated and collaborated with other stakeholders as a result. As demonstrated below, TURN’s substantial contribution enabled Decisions 1808004, 1907015 and 1908025, to balance the need to provide effective and useful disaster relief measures and the need to refine who is eligible for the relief measures, and to adopt permanent disaster relief rules for the energy, water, and communications utilities.As such, TURN files its compensation request now that the Commission has completed its review and adopted permanent rules to provide relief to California utility consumers who are affected by a disaster. The most recent Commission decision, Decision 1908025, does not close the proceeding, and TURN will continue to be an active party in this proceeding.OIR at pp. 13.OIR at p. 5.NotedJurisdictionSince the beginning of this proceeding, the communications utilities have challenged the Commission’s authority to implement the proposed disaster relief rules. In response, TURN and other consumer advocates researched the jurisdictional challenges raised by the communications providers, and supported the Commission’s authority to implement and enforce disaster relief measures for communications consumers. TURN et al. argued that the Commission has constitutional and statutory authority, and police powers, to implement the interim and permanent disaster relief rules. The Commission agreed that it has authority to act, and rejected the communications carriers’ arguments. Specifically, Decision 1908025 states, “TURN argues in support of our exercise of jurisdiction and provided support to clarify any ambiguity about the loaner phone requirement. . . . We agree with TURN’s arguments and proposals and have modified the decision accordingly.” D.1808004 at pp. 13, 15 (summarizing providers’ challenges to the Commission’s authority);D.1908025 at p. 3335, 4850 (summarizing providers’ challenges to the Commission’s authority).Joint Consumers PHC Statement (dated April 30, 2019) at p. 2; Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the Scoping Memo (dated July 13, 2018) at pp. 2627;Joint Consumers Reply Comments on the Scoping Memo (dated August 10, 2018) at p. 12;Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 12, 12;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the Communications PD (dated August 5, 2019) at pp. 14;TURN Reply Comments on the Communications PD (dated August 12, 2019) at pp. 15;D.1808004 at COLs 711, OPs 56; D.1908025 at COLs 129, OPs 15.D.1908025 at p. 49 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN’s arguments), COLs 129 (incorporating TURN’s arguments). VerifiedNeed for Mandatory RulesResolutions M4833 and M4835 ordered mandatory disaster relief measures for gas and electricity utilities, some mandatory and some permissive disaster relief measures for communications providers, and mandatory disaster relief measures for water utilities only in M4835. TURN encouraged the Commission to adopt Interim Rules, instead of utilizing a resolution process for each disaster, to avoid delays in protecting consumers and promote clarity for all stakeholders in the face of future disasters. The Commission agreed in D.1808004 and adopted the disaster relief measures set forth in the Resolutions as interim disaster relief measures while the Commission contemplated permanent disaster relief consumer protections. Water and SewerThe water utilities argued that the consumer protections following a disaster should be permissive only, leaving the protections and the implementation of those protections to the discretion of the water utilities. TURN, as part of Joint Consumers, disagreed and encouraged the Commission to implement a baseline of disaster relief measures that would come into effect should the measures be triggered by a qualifying disaster. TURN et al. explained that this approach would reduce confusion about what relief measures are available and when. The Commission in D.1907015 agreed with the Joint Consumers that Water utilities should implement disaster relief measures consistent with Resolution M4833. CommunicationsThroughout the proceeding, the communications providers argued that the Commission should only adopt voluntary relief measures for the communications utilities. TURN, and other consumer advocates disagreed, arguing that the Commission’s Resolutions and the interim rules did not go far enough to adopt a detailed and comprehensive set of consumer protections for communications customers, as it had for electric and gas customers. Indeed, the Joint Consumers noted that the communications providers’ advice letters implementing the voluntary interim disaster relief measures were not clear as to whether the relief measures were implemented at all. Joint Consumers reiterated that the Commission should adopt a baseline of mandatory relief measures that consumers can rely upon should a qualifying disaster strike. The Commission agreed in D.1908025 and “establish[ed] a permanent emergency disaster relief program that the specified telephone corporations are mandated to implement for their customers in the event of a presidential or gubernatorial declared emergency where service is disrupted or degraded because of the disaster(s).” Resolution M4833 (issued November 13, 2017);Resolution M4835 (issued January 12, 2018);Joint Consumers PHC Statement (dated April 30, 2018) at pp. 24;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the OIR (dated May 2, 2018) at pp. 12; Joint Consumers Reply Comments on the Scoping Memo (dated August 10, 2018) at pp. 1012;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the Interim Rules PD (dated July 30, 2018) at pp. 14;D.1808004 at OP 1.Water and SewerJoint Consumer PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 2324; D.1907015 at p. 4143 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COL 25, OP 9 (adopting TURN et al recommendations).CommunicationsJoint Consumers PHC Statement (dated April 30, 2018) at pp. 910;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the OIR (dated May 2, 2018) at pp. 12;Joint Consumers Scoping Memo Reply Comments (dated August 10, 2018) at pp. 1012;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the Interim Rules PD (dated July 30, 2018) at pp. 34;Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at p. 10;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the Communications PD (dated August 5, 2019) at pp. 1213.D.1908025 at pp. 67 (“establish[ing] a permanent emergency disaster relief program. . . .”).VerifiedTriggering Event As the Commission considered adopting the protections in Resolutions M4833 and M4835 as interim rules, TURN, as part of Joint Consumers, encouraged the Commission to adopt a triggering mechanism that was independent of Commission action: a Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency, in combination with a disruption or degradation of utility service. TURN argued that the uniformity of protections is extremely important to provide a bright line for consumers, utilities, and for the Commission, for when the disaster relief measures are triggered. The Interim Rules adopted by the Commission in D.1808004 extended the protections in M4833 and M4835 upon a declaration of a state of emergency by the Governor of California where the disaster has either resulted in the loss or disruption of utility service, or the degradation of the quality of utility service. Electricity, Gas, Water, and SewerThe Commission utilized workshop processes for stakeholders, including TURN, to discuss and come to an agreement as to the implementation processes for the disaster relief measures. In the gas and electric workshop, and the water and sewer workshop, Joint Consumers and the respective industries agreed by consensus that the disaster relief triggering mechanism should be a declaration of a state of emergency by either the Governor of California or the President of the United States. The Commission adopted this consensus approach in D.municationsTURN, as part of the Joint Consumers, argued that the same triggering mechanism for gas, electric, water, and sewer, disaster relief measures should apply to communications disaster relief measures to minimize confusion and to establish a bright line for when the disaster relief measures should come into effect. The Commission agreed in D.1908025. Joint Consumers recommended a definition of “disruption” of communications services to mean the loss of dial tone, no connection, or otherwise nonfunctioning service. The Commission agreed in D.1908025 and “adopt[ed] the recommendations from the parties to define ‘disruption’ as: (1) loss of dial tone; (2) no connection or otherwise nonfunctioning service; or (3) circumstances in which the caller cannot make or receive a voice call because the disaster has rendered the service nonfunctional and so, the caller is unable to make a 911 call.” Joint Consumers recommend a definition for “degraded” communications service to include situations where service is not completely out, but callers experience poor service quality, including, but not limited to, static, failure to connect, a fastbusy signal, and dropped calls. The Commission agreed in D.1908025 and “adopt[ed] these recommendations from parties to define ‘degradation’ as: situations caused by a disaster(s) where service being not completely out, but callers still encounter poor service quality, including, but not limited to, static, failure to connect, a fast busy signal, and/or dropped calls, including 911 call.”Unique to communications utilities disaster relief measures, Joint Consumers recommended the Commission adopt a 24hour threshold for certain customer protections. In D.1908025 the Commission stated, “We agree with Joint Consumers that a 24hour threshold for service disruption or degradation should be a trigger for certain customer protections (e.g., waiver of fees for call forwarding) while other customer protections many need to be deployed less than 24 hours after loss of service (e.g., deployment of Cells on Wheels [COWs] and Cells on Light Trucks [COLTs]).” AT&T and CTIA argued that the disaster relief measures should only apply if a large number of customers are affected. TURN disagreed, noting that rural populations may not be so dense as to meet the carriers’ proposed threshold population and yet are particularly vulnerable to harm from disasters and disruption or degradation of service from a disaster. The Commission rejected AT&T’s and CTIA’s suggestion in D.1908025, stating “We agree with Joint Consumers that, because rural customers may be more isolated and harder to reach as a result of service outages, service may be harder to restore in rural areas. In addition, rural areas often have high percentage of lowincome residents. Therefore, the emergency relief measures the Commission establishes may be even more important in helping these communities survive an emergency and rebuild following a disaster.” Joint Consumers PHC Statement (dated April 30, 2018) at p. 3;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the OIR (dated May 2, 2018) at pp. 47;Joint Consumers Opening Comments on the Scoping Memo (dated July 13, 2018) at pp. 23;Joint Consumers OIR Reply Comments (dated August 10, 2018) at pp. 79;Joint Consumers Interim Rules PD Opening Comments (dated July 30, 2018) at pp. 23;D.1808004 at COL 2, OP 12, 46 (adopting Joint Consumers’ recommendations).Electricity, Gas, Water, and SewerJoint Consumers Scoping Memo Opening Comments (dated July 13, 2018) at p. 2;Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 2023, 3334;Joint Consumers Energy and Water PD Opening Comments (dated June 27, 2019) at pp. 27;D.1907015 at pp. 2, 10, 1516 (summarizing stakeholders’ comments), COLs 37, 13, 32, OPs 1 (adopting stakeholders’ recommendations).CommunicationsJoint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 25;D.1908025 at p. 1920 (summarizing TURN et al. recommendations), 2324 (agreeing with TURN et al. recommendations), COL 3840, OP 1 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 2;D.1908025 at pp. 1920,2425 (summarizing and agreeing with Joint Consumers’ recommendations), COLs 3233 (adopting Joint Consumers’ recommendations).Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 23;D.1908025 at pp. 1920, 2425 (summarizing and agreeing with Joint Consumers’ recommendations), COLs 3233 (adopting Joint Consumers’ recommendations).Joint Consumers Comments PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 35;D.1908025 at pp. 1920, 25 (summarizing and agreeing with Joint Consumers’ recommendations), COL 34 (adopting Joint Consumers’ recommendations).Joint Consumers on PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 35;D.1908025 at pp. 2526 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. recommendations), COL 35 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).VerifiedConsumer Relief Measures On October 8, 2017, one of the largest fires in California’s history began to burn. That fire, and the devastation it created prompted TURN to “submit[] a letter to the Commissioners and Executive Director requesting that the Commission take action to assist the wildfire victims.” In turn, the Commission used the requested consumer protections in TURN’s October 24, 2017, letter as a basis for adopting resolutions to protect consumers following that disaster and a subsequent disaster. TURN encouraged the Commission to adopt the protections from the Resolutions as interim disaster relief measures as the Commission contemplated permanent rules. The Commission agreed in D.1808004, stating “By this decision, the protections adopted in Resolution M4833 and M4835 are controlling, interim authority while the Rulemaking 1803011 remains ongoing and until it concludes.” TURN also recommended that the Commission clarify that the disaster relief rules do not prohibit utilities from implementing additional assistance programs to supplement the baseline disaster relief consumer protections. The Commission agreed, including language to the Interim Rules Decision and subsequent decisions that “Nothing in this Decision bars or otherwise prohibits utilities from implementing their own disaster assistance program to supplement these adopted emergency customer protections.” Electricity and GasJoint Consumers and other stakeholders agreed by consensus at a workshop that the protections from the Resolutions should continue as the permanent rules for electric and gas customers. The Commission adopted this approach in D.1907015. Water and SewerJoint Consumers recommended that the protections provided for water utility customers in Resolution M4833 should continue as the permanent rules for water and sewer customers. Joint Consumers also recommended that bill waivers, and pro rata waivers of fixed elements of a bill, should be applicable to everyone who loses their home and if a home is uninhabitable for some time. The Commission agreed and implemented these suggestions in D.municationsSmall LECs requested a waiver from providing disaster relief protections because their service territories are small. Joint Consumers disagreed and maintained that all customers should benefit from disaster relief protections regardless of the size of the carrier. The Commission agreed in D.1908025 and adopted the disaster relief consumer protections from Resolutions M4833, M4835, and D.1808004, as permanent relief measures for communications customers regardless of the size of the provider. TenantsTURN, with the Joint Consumers, advocated for allowing tenants to qualify for the energy, water, and sewer disaster relief measures even if they are not the named account holder since these tenants are as in need of the disaster relief protections as named account holders. The Commission agreed in D.1907015, stating “tenants who are not on the account and wish to relocate and reestablish utility service shall receive the customer protections extended in this rulemaking by selfidentifying and stating that their residence was in a disaster area.”DurationResolutions M4833 and M4835 adopted a 12month duration for the consumer protections. In adopting the Resolutions as interim disaster relief rules, the Commission in D.1808004 maintained the 12month duration for the protections but added that the protections could discontinue when utility service is restored. Regarding the permanent protections, the Joint Consumers recommended that some disaster relief measures should continue even after service is restored, e.g. payment plans for bills, since these measures would benefit consumers recovering from a disaster even after service is restored. Joint Consumers also advocated that consumers and utilities would benefit from implementing a duration for the disaster relief measures that is consistent across industries. The Commission agreed in D.1907015 and D.1908025 and adopted a 12month duration for all disaster relief measures regardless of utility industry, and deferred to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to affirmatively communicate whether the protections should be ended sooner. OIR at p. 25. See generally, Resolution M4833 (issued November 13, 2017);Resolution M4835 (issued January 12, 2018).Joint Consumers PHC Statement (dated April 30, 2018) at p. 11; D.1808004 at pp. 1 (“. . . the protections adopted in Resolution M4833 and M4835 are controlling, interim authority. . . .”), 34, FOFs 12, COL 1, OP 1.Joint Consumers Interim Rules PD Opening Comments (dated July 30, 2018) at p. A2;D.1808004 at pp. 4, 1314, COL 14, OP 1 (“Nothing in the Decision bars. . . .); D.1907015 at OP 1 (“Nothing in the Decision bars. . . .); D.1908025 at OP 1 (“Nothing in the Decision bars. . . .).Electricity and GasJoint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at p. 3536;D.1907015 at pp. 1821 (summarizing and agreeing with stakeholders’ comments), COLs 1418, OP 2 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations). Water and SewerJoint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 2324;D.1907015 at pp. 4043 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COL 25, OP 9 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).CommunicationsJoint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at p. 6;D.1908025 at pp. 29, 31 (summarizing and adopting TURN et al. recommendations).TenantsJoint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at pp. 27, 37, 39;Joint Consumers PostWorkshop Opening Comments (dated February 22, 2019) at pp. 2628, 3537;Joint Consumers PostWorkshop Reply Comments (dated March 25, 2019) at pp. 3031, 4445;D.1907015 at pp. 24, 43 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COL 24 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).DurationSee generally, Resolution M4833 (issued November 13, 2017);Resolution M4835 (issued January 12, 2018);D.1808004 at p. 5, COL 3.Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at p. 7;D.1907015 at p. 1920, 4142 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COLs 1011, OP 1 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations);D.1908025 at p. 29 (summarizing Joint Consumers’ comments), COL 38, OP 1 (adopting Joint Consumers’ recommendations).VerifiedConsumer EducationFor customer awareness of the relief measures, TURN, as part of Joint Consumers, advocated for the utilities to engage in proactive, ongoing and continuous, consumer education regarding the existence of the disaster relief measures using robust outreach and education programs and a variety of communication strategies. TURN recommended that these communications strategies include communications through organizations and 211 to target vulnerable populations. TURN also recommended that the consumer education be provided inlanguage and in accessible formats. Some of the communications utilities argued that their obligations to provide inlanguage consumer education materials should be limited. The Commission agreed with TURN stating, “Raising awareness about the existence of the emergency customer protections before a disaster occurs is vital, so that when disasters do occur, customers are prepared.” The Commission adopted consumer education requirements, including inlanguage and accessible format requirement, for all utility industries regarding disaster relief measures that became effective immediately upon issuance of the final decisions. Joint Consumers PostWorkshop Opening Comments (dated February 22, 2019) at pp. 1721, 22, 2526, 2932, 34, 3839;Joint Consumer PostWorkshop Reply Comments (dated March 25, 2019) at pp. 1719, 3034, 4448; D.1907015 at p. 3132 (summarizing TURN et al. comments).D.1908025 at pp. 3639 (summarizing providers’ arguments).D.1907015 at pp. 3537, 4851 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COLs 2223, 2931, OPs 8, 1314 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations); D.1908025 at pp. 36 (summarizing Joint Consumers’ recommendations), 3942 (“Raising awareness . . before a disaster occurs is vital. . . .”), COLs 4854 (adopting consumer education requirements).VerifiedCoordination with Other EntitiesWhile some utilities, such as the water utilities, recommended that the first responder agencies should be the ones to reach out if they need outage information, TURN disagreed that the burden of requesting information should be on the first responder agencies. TURN, as part of Joint Consumers, recommended that the Commission require utilities to work closely with other entities such as CalOES, CalFIRE, and 211, to be transparent about service availability and provide estimated timeframes for service restoration, as this information would assist other agencies in making informed decisions as they respond to the disaster and help consumers to make informed decisions whether or when to find new accommodations. The Commission agreed with TURN in D.1907015, stating, “during emergencies, responders need to know where utility service is affected or may create hazardous conditions. Coordination regarding utility service is important for local, state, and federal entities to target assistance and plan recovery. . . . This will aid CalOES and CalFIRE in carrying out their mission in statute.” The Commission also agreed with TURN in D.1908025, and ordered providers to “work collaboratively with Commission staff and our sister government agencies on measures to instill greater awareness of 211 services.”Joint Consumers Scoping Memo Reply Comments (dated August 10, 2018) at pp. 3, 11;Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Opening Comments (dated October 17, 2018) at pp. 17;Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at p. 41; Joint Consumers PostWorkshop Opening Comments (dated February 22, 2019) at pp. 28, 1217, 2023;Joint Consumers PostWorkshop Reply Comments (dated March 25, 2019) at pp. 1720, 303134, 4448;D.1907015 at pp. 2930, 4647 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COLs 2021, OPs 7, 12 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations); D.1908025 at pp. 2628 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COL 46, OP 9 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).VerifiedAdvice Letters and Compliance ReportingThe interim rules adopted in D.1808004 required the utilities to file an advice letter within 15 days of a declared disaster to notify the Commission that the disaster relief measures are in effect. The water utilities argued that the Commission should stop requiring utilities to submit advice letters as part of the permanent protections. They instead suggested that the Commission could submit data requests of the utilities if the Commission wished to know whether the disaster relief measures are in effect. Multiple providers also argued that they should be exempt from filing Advice Letters for a multitude of reasons. TURN, as part of Joint Consumers, disagreed and argued that water utilities’ suggestion would be burdensome on the Commission and would not be conducive with transparent consumer protections efforts. The Commission agreed with TURN in D.1907015, stating “We agree that the use of a Tier 1 Advice Letter notifying the Commission of the implementation of the emergency customer protections is appropriate.” TURN also recommended the Commission collect data to assess the effectiveness of the disaster relief protections. TURN also advocated for the Advice Letters to be served on the service list for this proceeding since some of the utilities had not done so following the interim rules decision, D.1808004. The Commission agreed, required the utilities to file (1) a Tier 1 Advice Letter demonstrating their plans for collaborative engagement and information sharing with CalOES and CalFIRE; and (2) within 12 months of a qualifying event, to file a Tier 1 Advice Letter “detailing the protections offered, outreach efforts, and customer impacts” and associated costs. The Commission also ordered “The Tier 1 Advice Letters shall be filed on the service list of this rulemaking to ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity, through timely and efficient means, to receive notice and review these filings.” D.1808004 at OPs 2, 46 (requiring advice letters);Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2018) at p. 14, 18, 20, 40, 45;D.1907015 at pp. 40, 5152 (“We agree that the use of a Tier 1 Advice Letter. . . . is appropriate”), OPs 6, 11 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations); D.1908025 at pp. 36 (summarizing TURN et al. comments), 4244 (agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COLs 4142; OPs 2, 78 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).Joint Consumers PreWorkshop Reply Comments (dated October 24, 2019) at p. 14, 20, 3132, 3536, 4041;Joint Consumers PostWorkshop Opening Comments (dated February 22, 2019) at pp. 1719; D.1907015 at pp. 20, 31, 3940, 5152 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. recommendations), OPs 667, 1112 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations); D.1908025 at pp. 4849 (summarizing and agreeing with TURN et al. comments), COL 44, OPs 7 (adopting TURN et al. recommendations).VerifiedDuplication of Effort (§?1801.3(f) and §?1802.5):Intervenor’s AssertionCPUC Discussiona.Was the Public Advocate’s Office of the Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) a party to the proceeding?YesYesb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? YesYesc.If so, provide name of other parties: The Center for Accessible Technology, and the National Consumer Law Center.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: This compensation request covers a year and a half of work, several filings, and workshops. The work implicates numerous policies, procedures, and practices that have significant impacts on Californians and their ability to recover following a disaster. TURN’s participation with CforAT and NCLC as Joint Consumers, allowed TURN to efficiently participate and conserve resources while at the same time, maximize its substantial contribution in the proceeding and avoid duplication of effort.TURN often took the lead to coordinate and assign work tasks between the intervenors, file and serve pleadings, coordinate ex parte meetings, and attend workshop and prehearing conferences. Each Joint Consumer coalition member brought their own expertise to the work including expertise with each of the utility industries, and lessons learned and consumer needs from disasters in state and throughout the nation. TURN found that the expertise and experiences of these groups were also directly applicable to the broader issues in this proceeding and the combination of organizations made our participation more effective and efficient than if done individually.While, at times, TURN coordinated its efforts and research with Public Advocates, TURN did not always adopt the same positions as Public Advocates in this proceeding. For example, in comments on the proposed decision to adopt permanent disaster relief measures for communications consumers, Public Advocates focused on making substantive modifications to the proposed decision, while TURN focused on supporting the Commission’s authority against providers’ opposition.The Commission should find that TURN’s participation was efficiently coordinated with other intervenors and Public Advocates where possible, so as to avoid undue duplication and to ensure any duplication served to supplement, complement, or contribute to TURN’s showing and the showing of other intervenors.NotedPART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: TURN’s request for intervenor compensation seeks an award of approximately $123,137.95 as the reasonable cost of our participation thus far in this proceeding. TURN submits that these costs are reasonable in light of the importance of the issues TURN addressed and the benefits to California customers. TURN’s advocacy reflected in D.1808004, D.1907015, and D.1908025 addressed policy matters, and specifically consumer protections, rather than specific rates or disputes over particular dollar amounts. As such, TURN cannot easily identify precise monetary benefits to ratepayers from our work in this proceeding. However, the policies and rules adopted in this proceeding, implementing interim disaster relief measures, and permanent disaster relief measures, for electricity, gas, water, sewer, and communications consumers, directly impact consumers’ ability to recover following a disaster. There are many barriers that prevent Californians from recovering from disasters, which can be made worse with the passage of time between the time the disaster begins and when the relief is received, if at all. TURN worked to ensure that the disaster relief measures would be available to consumers as soon as a qualifying disaster occurs. TURN advocated for a minimum standard of disaster relief consumer protections to provide consistency and assurance to consumers facing a disaster that they can rely on the existence of those minimum protections to support them in their recovery from the disaster. The Commission has previously recognized the value of consumer protections in awarding intervenor compensation. See e.g., D.1811048, issued in R.1403002 (Regulations re: Gas Core Transport Agents) (awarding TURN Intervenor Compensation for substantial contribution to D.1408043 and D.1802002).California ratepayers also benefited from TURN’s participation. TURN supported compliance reporting, which includes the accounting of any expenditures that may be claimed in a utilities’ Catastrophic Emergency Memoranda Account that will be reviewed for reasonableness in a utilities’ General Rate Case.While it is difficult to attach a dollar value to consumer protections, TURN submits that the Commission should find that TURN’s costs of participation are reasonable in light of the significant consumer benefits from comprehensive and efficient disaster relief consumer protections.Notedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed: Initially, Christine Mailloux was TURN’s lead attorney on Disaster Relief measures. She was responsible for the initial strategy development and research, and worked with TURN attorney Hayley Goodson to do so. Following the prehearing conference, which Ms.?Goodson attended, Ashley Salas became TURN’s lead attorney in the proceeding and served as TURN’s representative during workshops throughout the state.Ms.?Mailloux assisted Ms.?Salas in several aspects of this proceeding, including strategy development. Ms.?Mailloux generally supervises and oversees Ms.?Salas’ work but, as the time sheets reflect, Ms.?Mailloux was also directly involved in small amounts of drafting of pleadings and coordinating with other parties to the proceeding. To a lesser extent, Ms.?Goodson, a TURN energy attorney, and Regina Costa, TURN’s Telecommunications Policy Director, provided Ms.?Salas with valuable insight to develop and execute case strategy, as necessary to coordinate work on overlapping issues. For external meetings with more than one TURN representative, these instances are limited to situations where it was essential because of the wide range of issues on consumer coordination and the wide range of stakeholder interests represented by multiple parties. Occasionally, the Commission has deemed such entries as reflecting internal duplication and not eligible for an award of intervenor compensation, but this is not the case here.Indeed, TURN has reviewed its time sheets and deleted entries where there was a likelihood of duplication. For the remaining entries, each TURN advocate was an active participant in the conversation or meeting, bringing her particular knowledge and expertise to bear on the discussion and helping TURN identify issues and develop positions. These entries reflect TURN’s substantial contribution and the coordinated work effort by its internal team. TURN submits that such meetings are part of an intervenor’s effective advocacy before the Commission, and that intervenor compensation can and should be awarded for the time of all participants in conversations and meetings to advance the intervenor’s advocacy efforts.Ms.?Salas worked very closely with the Center for Accessible Technology and the National Consumer Law Center on most aspects of the proceeding, and her time reflects this work with a “COOR” code. This coordination allowed Ms.?Salas to conserve TURN’s resources and yet fully participate with drafting pleadings, discussing strategy, conducting legal research, and participating in workshops.Reasonableness of Expenses:The Commission should find that the expenses associated with TURN’s participation over the last year and a half in this proceeding are reasonable. TURN made efforts to ensure that its copying and postage charges are reasonable, has been cautious in incurring expenses, and has been conservative in its decision to include certain expenses in this compensation request.Travel:For this compensation request, TURN includes expenses for one travel event. The travel expense was for Ms.?Salas to attend a Commission ordered workshop to discuss the communications industry’s implementation of disaster relief measures and responses, coordination with other entities including other utilities and government bodies, and network hardening and resiliency to disaster. The Commission ordered the workshop for stakeholders to collaborate and discuss these matters inperson to find a workable solution. Ms.?Salas’ travel and advocacy at the workshop, along with other intervenors, resulted in proposals that were subsequently adopted in a Commission decision. TURN recognizes that the Commission has previously allowed travel expenses for each of TURN’s San Diegobased attorneys to attend workshops and other proceeding events throughout the state.See, e.g., D.1905016 (R.1612001); D.1904035 (A.1707011); D.1901017 (R.1103013).Attorney Hourly Rates:Regina CostaTURN requests an hourly rate of $320.00 for Ms.?Costa’s work in 2019. TURN calculated this rate by increasing Ms.?Costa’s 2016 approved rate with a COLA of 2.14% approved by ALJ345 (2017), a COLA of 2.3% approved by ALJ352 (2018), and a COLA of 2.35% approved by ALJ357 (2019). Hayley GoodsonTURN is using Ms.?Goodson’s approved rate for her work in 2018.TURN requests an hourly rate of $445.00 for Ms.?Goodson’s work in 2019. TURN calculated this rate by increasing Ms.?Goodson’s 2018 approved rate with a COLA of 2.35% approved by ALJ357 (2019). TURN also requested this same rate for Ms.?Goodson in other comp requests filed this year, such as those in A.1706030 and A.1411007 et al.Christine MaillouxTURN is using Ms.?Mailloux’ approved rate for her work in 2018.TURN requests an hourly rate of $495.00 for Ms.?Mailloux’ work in 2019. TURN calculated this rate by increasing Ms.?Mailloux’ 2018 approved rate with a COLA of 2.35% approved by ALJ357 (2019). TURN also requested this same rate for Ms.?Mailloux in its comp request filed in R.1706023.Ashley SalasTURN is using Ms.?Salas’ approved rate for her work in 2018.TURN requests an hourly rate of $235.00 for Ms.?Salas’ work in 2019. TURN calculated this rate by increasing Ms.?Salas’ 2018 approved rate with a COLA of 2.35% approved by ALJ357 (2019). TURN also requested this same rate for Ms.?Salas in its comp requests filed in R.1301010 and R.1210012.Notedc. Allocation of hours by issue: TURN has allocated its daily time entries by activity codes to better reflect the nature of the work reflected in each entry. TURN has used the following activity codes. CodeDescriptionAllocation of TimeGPGeneral Preparation Work that generally does not vary with the number of issues that TURN addresses in the case.3.36%COMPCompensation Work spent on compensation requests related matters.4.12%COORCoordination of Effort Work spent coordinating efforts, including dividing drafting and representation of issues, for comments, prehearing conference, and workshops with other intervenors (CforAT and NCLC).2.60%TRGTriggering Mechanism – Work to establish a method to efficiency and effectively automatically trigger the disaster relief consumer protection measures following a qualifying disaster, and the definitions of the applicable terms.6.65%JURJurisdiction – Research and analysis of the Commission's jurisdiction to enact disaster relief measures, including Commissions’ precedent taking similar actions in related proceedings.8.43%ELGEligibility – Work to define and refine the consumers who are eligible for the disaster relief consumer protection measures, including the implementation and identification of such eligibility, and consumer education.12.10%RLFRelief Measures – Work to establish interim disaster relief consumer protections and permanent disaster relief consumer protection measures for electricity, gas, water, sewer, and communications services, as well as review of lessons learned and cost recovery accounting.15.97%RESNetwork Resiliency – Work to increase the hardiness of the communications systems, including improving service quality and backup power, to prevent harm to consumers and first responders from communications outages before, during, and after a disaster.10.84%ALSAdvice Letters – Work to determine and define when reporting compliance and lessons learned from implementation is necessary, including the review of Advice Letter reporting compliance and protests.11.28%ICRIndustry Coordination – Analysis and advocacy on coordination across the utility industries, and with nonutility organizations (e.g. 211), first responders and government agencies.6.46%#Combined Effort – Time entries that cover substantive work that cannot easily be identified as a specific activity code. The hours identified as “#” are generally associated with a Scoping Memo or a Proposed Decision. TURN does not believe allocation of these entries is required, but if the Commission chooses to allocate these entries to specific issues they would roughly break down as: ELG 35%, RLF35%, JUR 20%, ALS5%, ICR5%.16.67%TravelTravel – Time spent traveling for ALJordered workshops in this proceeding. 1.52%VerifiedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Regina Costa201914.75$320.00D.1705012; Res. ALJ345 (2.14% 2017 COLA); Res. ALJ352 (2.3% 2018 COLA); Res. ALJ357 (2.35% 2019 COLA)$4,720.0014.75$320$4,720.00Hayley Goodson20189.50$435.00D.1804020$4,132.509.5$435$4,132.50Hayley Goodson20194.0$445.00D.1804020; Res. ALJ357 (2.35% 2019 COLA)$1,780.004$445$1,780.00Christine Mailloux201868.25$485.00D.1901017$33,101.2568.25$485$33,101.25Christine Mailloux201944.00$495.00D.1901017; ALJ 357$21,780.0044$495$21,780.00Ashley Salas2018102.75$225.00D.1905016$23,118.75102.75$225$23,118.75Ashley Salas2019129.00$235.00Res. ALJ357 (the lowest end of the range for attorneys in the 34 year experience tier).$30,315.00129$235$30,315.00Subtotal: $118,947.50Subtotal: $118,947.50OTHER FEESDescribe here what OTHER HOURLY FEES you are Claiming (paralegal, travel **, etc.):ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Ashley Salas20186.00$112.50Half of 2018 requested rate for travel time$675.006$112.50$675.00Subtotal: $675.00Subtotal: $675.00INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Hayley Goodson20192.50$222.50Half of 2019 requested rate$556.252.50$222.50$556.25Christine Mailloux20180.50$242.50Half of 2018 requested rate$121.250.50$242.50$121.25Ashley Salas20181.50$112.50Half of 2018 requested rate$168.751.50$112.50$168.75Ashley Salas201911.75$117.50Half of 2019 requested rate$1,380.6311.75$117.50$1,380.63Subtotal: $2,226.88Subtotal: $2,226.88COSTS#ItemDetailAmountAmount1.PhotocopyingCopying relating to pleadings for ALJ and Commission Officers in proceeding R.1803011.$74.90$74.902.PostagePostage expenses regarding proceeding R.1803011.$33.95$33.953.PhonePhone bill for calls or conference calls necessary for proceeding.$59.97$59.974.Lexis AdvanceLegal research on Lexis Advance related to proceeding R.1803011.$833.92$833.925.Attorney TravelAttorney travel fees and expenses related to the proceeding.$253.83$253.836.ParkingParking fees related to proceeding R.1803011.$32.00$32.00Subtotal: $1,288.57Subtotal: $1,288.57TOTAL REQUEST: $123,137.95TOTAL AWARD: $123,137.95 *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 explanationChristine A. Mailloux12/93167918NoHayley C. Goodson12/03228535NoAshley L. Salas12/15308374NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/Comment1Certificate of Service2Timesheets for TURN’s Attorneys and Advocates3TURN Direct Expenses Associated with D.1808004, D.1907015, and D.1908025.4TURN Hours Allocated by Issue FINDINGS OF FACTThe Utility Reform Network has made a substantial contribution to D.1808004, D.1907015, and D.1908025.The requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform Network’s representatives are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.The claimed costs and expenses are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $123,137.95.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812.ORDERThe Utility Reform Network shall be awarded $123,137.95.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, the Commission’s Intervenor Compensation Fund shall pay The Utility Reform Network 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 January 5, 2020, the 75th day after the filing of The Utility Reform Network’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated September 24, 2020, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJERPresidentLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMACommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2009033Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D1808004, D1907015, and D1908025Proceeding(s):R1803011Author:ALJ Rizzo and ALJ BemesderferPayer(s):Commission’s Intervenor Compensation FundIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceThe Utility Reform NetworkOctober 22, 2019$123,137.95$123,137.95N/AN/AHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedReginaCostaAdvocate$320.002019$320HayleyGoodsonAttorney$435.002018$435HayleyGoodsonAttorney$445.002018$445ChristineMaillouxAttorney$485.002018$485ChristineMaillouxAttorney$495.002019$495AshleySalasAttorney$225.002018$225AshleySalasAttorney$235.002019$235(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download