Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?ALJ/JMO/CR2/gp2Date of Issuance: 2/16/2021Decision 21-02-023 February 11, 2021BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Building Decarbonization. Rulemaking 19-01-011Decision granting compensation to Small Business utility advocates for substantial contribution to Decision (D.) 20-03-027Intervenor: Small Business Utility AdvocatesFor contribution to Decision (D.): D.20-03-027Claimed: $41,229.93Awarded: $41,229.75Assigned Commissioner: Clifford RechtschaffenAssigned Administrative Law Judges (ALJs): Colin Rizzo and Jeanne McKinneyPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: D.20-03-027 (the “Decision”) establishes a framework for the Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development (BUILD Program) program and the Technology and Equipment for Clean Heating (TECH Initiative) pilot initiatives, as authorized by Senate Bill (SB) 1477.Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:IntervenorCPUC VerificationTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference:4/24/2019Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed:05/24/2019Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed?YesShowing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b) or eligible local government entity status(§§ 1802(d), 1802.4): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:A.18-11-005Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:6/24/2019Verified 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:aA.18-11-005Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:6/24/2019Verified11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):12 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804I):13. Identify Final Decision:D.20-03-027Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 4/06/2020Verified15. File date of compensation request:6/05/2020Verified16. 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.98-04-059): Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC Discussion1. Opening and Reply Comments on OIRa) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: The OIR provided five Guiding Principles (OIR at 16-17). SBUA’s comments recommended revisions to the Equity principle and adding two additional principles: Lessons Learned and Cost- Effectiveness. (SBUA Opening Comments on OIR at 7.)As discussed further below, many of SBUA’s substantial contributions are captured in the California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission Staff Proposal for Building Decarbonization Pilots (July 16, 2019) (Staff Proposal), which was included for comment in the Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking Comment on Staff Proposal for Building Decarbonization Pilots and formed the core of much of the Decision. (See also, SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Proposal; SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Proposal.)The Staff Proposal recommends that the Commission adopt SBUA’s positions on equity principles. “In addition, the Small Business Utility Advocates submitted additional language regarding equity, which we add below. . . In addition, the Small Business Utility Advocates recommended some new guiding principles, which Energy Commission and CPUC staff also recommend the CPUC adopt, listed below[:] 6. Lessons Learned and Data Reporting: Programs should seek to provide meaningful data and actionable new information about effective techniques, existing market conditions and consumer behavior to generate and support effective GHG-reduction approaches in the future. 7. Cost-Effectiveness: Programs should seek to maximize GHG-reduction and customer cost savings per investment dollar while removing fixed cost barriers to entry and assisting marginalized groups to take advantage of low-cost opportunities.” (Staff Proposal at 21-22 (emphasis added).) The Decision described the Staff Proposal as providing the “policy rationales and frameworks that the Commission could use to support development of portions of the buildingmarket to support faster penetration of technologies that will help decarbonizeresidential buildings in California.” (Decision at 10) and listed SBUA’s recommended “cost-effectiveness” among the Guiding Principles (Id. at 11).Notedb) Amplifying Small Business Visibility: SBUA comments on the OIR emphasize the importance of including the commercial sector as a significant contributor to building-related GHG emissions. (SBUA Opening Comments on OIR at 5, 10; SBUA Reply Comments on OIR at 3-5.)The Staff Proposal includes SBUA’s data on the significance of the commercial sector in GHG emissions and SBUA’s position that all sectors should be included in the programs. (Staff Proposal at 15). The Decision similarly states that the program administrators should partner with business (Decision at 44).The Decision also includes numerous adjustments recommend by SBUA (as described herein) that allow the pilot programs to be adapted for commercial structures in the future. Verifiedc) Improving Outreach: SBUA recommended outreach to small businesses (particularly electricians and other contractors) as a means of raising awareness of and increasing adoption of new methods and technologies (SBUA Opening Comments on OIR at 4.) The Staff Proposal includes SBUA’s comments. (Staff Proposal at 52) and the Decision states that program administrators shall design their education and outreach to boost awareness and adoption ofbuilding decarbonization technologies into Californian homes and businesses”. (Decision at 44). It also directs the TECH implementor to include “interventions that will affect contractors, builders, plumbers, electricians, and retail sales outlets” (Decision at 84) and “provide . . . contractor training” (Id. at 94; see also 43).Verified2. Opening and Reply Comments on Staff Proposal a) Reasonable Budget & Allocation of Costs: SBUA explained that budgets should not be fixed in advance at annual amounts but respond organically based on changing administrative costs and learnings from initial allocations (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Proposal at 4-5, 9; SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Proposal at 3). “SBUA recommends that the annual budgets should not be constant” and that flexibility be incorporated to adjust for variables and lessons learned. (Decision at 21-22)“SBUA argues that the evaluation budget should be based on RFP bids and the budget should not be fixed, but rather capped at an appropriate level with the actual price based on competitive bidding by prospective program evaluators.” (Decision at 23)“We agree with CBIA, Joint Environmentals, VEIC, CSE, and SBUA that a four-year budget is more appropriate than an annual budget.” (Decision at 29)Verifiedb) Reasonable Budget & Allocation of Costs: SBUA opposed the TECH prize program and specifically recommended increasing the quick start grant funding or reserve for future allocations (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 13). SBUA’s position in opposition to the TECH prize program proposed in the Staff Proposal (Decision at 12 and 80) was discussed (id. at 80). The Decision eliminates the prize program and frees up the funds for other programs, including the quick-start grant program (Id. at 85).Verifiedc) Amplifying Small Business Visibility: SBUA advocated to ensure that hard-to-reach customers and small businesses, including installer contractors, are included by tracking their participation. (Comments on ALJ Ruling 6, Reply Comments on ALJ Ruling 17.)See Comment 1 below (SBUA only represents the small business community as a whole and does not represent financially interested contractors.) “SBUA recommends that evaluation and metrics criteria include: (1) an assessment of the effectiveness of the outreach strategies to hard-to-reach customers; and (2) the degree of training provided to contractors, manufacturers and employers. (Decision at 35) The Commission adopts SBUA’s evaluation recommendations: “We also find the program evaluation recommendations from. . . SBUA reasonable. Therefore, the program evaluator shall work with Energy Division staff, the BUILD Program administrator, and the TECH Initiative implementer to determine which of the following additional metrics should be required, as part of pilot program evaluation: (1) market share data (i.e., demographic factors) that track both the overall share of various low-emissions technologies and the share of new installations; . . . (4) contractor performance; . . . [and] (6) success in degree of training provided to market actors necessary to facilitate market transformation”. (Decision at 39-40.) Verifiedd) Overcoming Barriers: SBUA recommended including outreach to local governments to remove permitting barriers (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 17.)The recommendation of outreach and training to local governments is only attributed to SBUA in the Decision: “For the TECH Initiative, SBUA recommends, among other things, direct education and training to cities and counties’ staff through advocacy and partnerships with existing municipal interest groups to remove barriers related to permitting.” (Decision at 42.) The Commission effectively agrees with SBUA’s recommendation by including local governments and permitting offices among the groups to be targeted for partnership, outreach and advocacy (Decision at 44, 84.) Verifiede) Amplifying Small Business Visibility: SBUA brought visibility to the particular needs of small businesses and their important role in meeting decarbonization objectives. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Proposal at 6, 8; SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Proposal at 8; see also SBUA Opening Comments on OIR at 3, 5, 6, 9; SBUA Reply Comments on OIR at 4, 6-7.)The Decision addresses SBUA’s concerns by including small business among customer classes to be evaluated for effectiveness of market actor transformative behavior. (Decision at 45.)Verifiedf) Overcoming Barriers: SBUA advocated for on-bill financing, which was not mentioned in the Staff Proposal, to reduce up-front cost barriers faced by small businesses considering adopting new technologies. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 17-18; SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Report at 9 (supporting CALSSA’s recommendation of including on-bill financing); SBUA Opening Comments on OIR at 10-11; SBUA Reply Comments on OIR at 8.) The Decision, unlike the Staff Proposal, includes on-bill financing for TECH. (Decision at 84-85.)Verifiedg) Reasonable Budget & Allocation of Costs: SBUA recommended that the ultimate evaluation costs should not be fixed but “rather capped at the appropriate level with the actual price based on competitive bidding by prospective program evaluators.” (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Proposal at 5.) In contrast, the Staff Proposal included set dollar figures. (Staff Proposal at 18-19.) The Decision adopts the approach recommended by SBUA with a 2.5% budgetary cap and the “the precise budgetary allocation ultimately depending on the winning bid.” (Decision at 28, fn. 72.) Verifiedh) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: SBUA supported defining technology broadly under BUILD to allow for maximum innovation, participation and cost effectiveness. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 12.)The Decision implements SBUA’s approach and states “there is no restriction for the BUILD program to incentivize a specific technology or measure, but rather any combination” that achieves an efficient outcome is eligible. (Decision at 67.)Verifiedi) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: SBUA opposed the Staff Proposal’s recommendation that TECH funds be focused on hotter climate zones. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Proposal at 14; see also SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Proposal at 6.) The Decision recounts SBUA’s position (Decision at 81) and ultimately decides consistently with SBUA’s flexible approach to “direct the implementer to use its discretion to determine the most promising geographic target areas for a focused TECH Initiative effort” (id. at 91).Verifiedj) Overcoming Barriers: SBUA emphasized that the calculation of utility bill costs must be calibrated to the level of service received (e.g., efficient heat pumps [may?] offer A/C to those who did not have it before). (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Proposal at 16).The Decision includes the requirement that program evaluation take into consideration “a full range of costs and benefits to the customer (e.g., non-energy impacts and improvements in energy services).” (Decision at 40.) The inclusion of consideration of “improvements of energy services” will take into account utility bills relative to the potentially higher level of service received by heat pumps and other technologies.Verifiedk) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: To be more effective and more inclusive of small businesses, SBUA provided market data supporting inclusion of smaller builders in the BUILD program. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 7-8) and rebutted positions of other parties that supported focusing on only the largest builders. (SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Report at 7.) The Decision supports the position taken by SBUA and states “It is reasonable to offer BUILD Program incentives at both the subdivision and custom/single family home levels.” (Decision at 65.)Verifiedl) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: SBUA opposed placing a cap on percentage of expenditures for low-income housing under BUILD. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 10.)“VEIC and SBUA state that the low-income budget should be clarified as a floor, not a ceiling and that low-income budget thresholds should be applicable to the incentive budget.” (Decision at 55.) Conclusion of Law 17 states “30 percent allotment for new low-income residential housing . . . should be considered a minimum threshold, not a cap.”Verifiedm) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: SBUA appeared to be the only party to identify the importance of aligning BUILD incentives to maximize Low-Income Tax Credit eligibility under TCAC rules, which were not considered in the Staff Recommendations. (SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Report at 8.)The Decision’s additional Pilot Programs Guidelines includes a section specifically directing that the “BUILD Program administrator shall collaborate with the TCAC to ensure mutual benefit between the BUILD Program and the LIHTC Program.” (Decision, App. A, A2.)Verifiedn) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: The Staff Report proposed to limit replacement of existing electric (as opposed to gas) appliances under the TECH program to low-income and disadvantaged communities (Staff Report at 48). SBUA opposed the fuel replacement criteria because many homes do not have gas and replacing inefficient electric appliances offers greater opportunity for utility bill savings (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 14-15).Consistent with SBUA’s position, the fuel replacement criteria recommended in the Staff Report, which SBUA opposed, was not included in the Decision. Notedo) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: SBUA submitted extensive data showing the importance of smaller builders in the residential construction market and argued against providing only subdivision-level BUILD incentives, excluding single family structures from BUILD or favoring large-scale builders as requested by some parties (e.g., CBIA), such as by allocating incentives on a first-come-first-serve basis. (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 7-8; SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Report at 3, 7.)The Decision was largely in accordance with SBUA’s recommendation and was substantially supported by SBUA’s filings in the record when the Commission determined that: “It is reasonable to offer BUILD Program incentives at both the subdivision and custom/single family home levels.” (Decision at 65.) Similarly, the Commission declined to establish a first-come-first-serve rule and left it to the discretion of the CEC to allocate funds in accordance with program objectives. (Id. at 67.)Verifiedp) Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: The ALJ Ruling requested responses on whether BUILD incentives should be capped at the per-ton social cost of carbon (Ruling at 4). SBUA argued against such a cap because catalyzing incentives will often need to be higher than that level (SBUA Opening Comments on Staff Report at 8-9) and urged the Commission to adopt CBIA’s proposal that incentives be tied to the “incremental cost tothe builder” (SBUA Reply Comments on Staff Report at 8).As proposed by SBUA and other parties, the Decision does not cap BUILD incentives at the social cost of carbon and “tie[s] incentives to the cost of equipment, incremental cost difference for builders.” (Decision at 68.)Verified3. SBUA Comments and Reply Comments on Proposed DecisionIncrease Flexibility & Inclusivity: SBUA provided analysis justifying the expansion of the BUILD program to cover in-fill and repurposing projects, not just brand-new buildings as would have been the case under the Proposed Decision. (SBUA Opening Comments on Proposed Decision at 5-6). The Proposed Decision limited BUILD funding to “a building that has never been used or occupied for any purpose.” (Proposed Decision at 4). Following SBUA’s comments, which were recognized as received (Decision at 95), the scope of buildings eligible for the BUILD program was expanded to include:“1. A building that has never been used or occupied for any purpose; or2. Any work, addition to, remodel, repair, renovation, or alteration of any building(s) or structure(s) when 50 percent or more of the exterior weight bearing walls are removed or demolished;” or 3. An existing building repurposed for housing, whose original use was not residential.” (Id. at 4; see also id. at 93.)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: CEJA emphasized importance of outreach to DACs and low-income communities, which is also a concern to SBUA, and CALSSA also recommended on-bill financing, but neither of these parties focused on the importance of these measures to small business ratepayers. Several environmental groups, like NRDC and EDF, also were parties to the proceeding and may have had overlapping positions with SBUA but in limited circumstances.Notedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: SBUA took all reasonable steps to coordinate its efforts with other parties and, for example, participated in coordination calls by NRDC along with other parties. SBUA was careful to reduce overlap of efforts by presenting unique perspectives on the concerns of small business ratepayers as a group as opposed to other customer classes. Although the interests of various intervenors and parties can overlap, SBUA was the only party who analyzed and presented the unique perspectives and concerns of small business. Therefore, while other parties may have had positions that were similar to SBUA in some degrees, our perspectives and goals were necessarily different, and were supplemented, not duplicated, by efforts on common issues.NotedAdditional Comments on Part II: #Intervenor’s CommentCPUC Discussion1SBUA’s nonprofit mission is to represent the community of small business ratepayers as a whole. SBUA does not represent any individual small businesses or groups that seek contracts or other work opportunities with direct financial interests related to building decarbonization.NotedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: SBUA intervened in this proceeding to protect and advance the interests ofsmall business ratepayers. SBUA actively participated throughout theprocess by retaining an expert and filing opening (3/11/19) and reply (3/25/19) comments on the Order Instituting Rulemaking, providing opening (8/13/19) and reply (8/20/19) comments on the ALJ’s Ruling Seeking Comments on Staff Proposal, and providing opening (3/4/20) and reply (3/9/20) comments on the Proposed Decision. SBUA coordinated and conferred with other parties principally through NRDC’s coordinating calls and spreadsheets identifying party positions to avoid duplication and facilitate reply comments. In addition, SBUA is submitting hours with this compensation request related to attending in-person the April 24. 2019, prehearing conference and attending in-person the July 30, 2020, workshop in which staff presented the Staff Proposal out of which was derived core elements of the Decision. These activities are essential to effectively advocating and participating in this proceeding and contemporary with matters leading to the current Decision.As discussed above, the Decision includes several SBUA recommendations, such as expansion of the scope of buildings eligible for BUILD, multi-year rather than annual program budgets and improved metrics, and providing a detailed record supportive of the Commission's Decision. Moreover, the Decision authorizes $200 million for the approved pilot programs, which are intended to create a framework for expanded programs in the future that may include commercial structures, and given the significance of climate change and importance of participation of small businesses in decarbonization efforts, it was reasonable for SBUA to participate in this proceeding on behalf of this underrepresented customer group. For these reasons, the Commission should find that SBUA’s efforts here have been reasonable and valuable.Notedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed: SBUA efficiently focused on issues not well-addressed by other parties, providing value for small business ratepayers while incurring a reasonable number of hours. SBUA devoted approximately 124.5 hours, which SBUA submits is a reasonable amount of time to participate in this stage of the proceeding with an assembly of a team of professionals, highly experienced in details of regulatory and utility proceedings. SBUA submits that it made significant contributions to the Decision, as documented above, and all of the recorded hours claimed were reasonably and efficiently expended and appropriate in the context of the level of effort required to participate in this portion of the proceeding, which included advocacy directly related to the Decision as well as various attendant activities (e.g., attending pre-hearing conference and workshops).Notedc. Allocation of hours by issue: SBUA has allocated all of professional time by issue area or activity, as is evident in our attached timesheets (Attachment 1) and broken down as follows:1. Increase Flexibility & Inclusivity: Designing flexible and inclusive programs so that these residential pilots can serve as a model for comparable programs for small businesses. 2. Improving Outreach: Improving comprehensive outreach to small businesses, a subset of hard-to-reach customers that form important elements of disadvantaged communities.? 3. Amplifying Small Business Visibility: Increasing visibility of small businesses, including contractors, and small commercial customers. ?? 4. Overcoming Barriers: Overcoming upfront costs and other barriers small businesses face to utilizing low-GHG technologies, such as by adopting alternative financing methods. 5. Reasonable Budget & Allocation of Costs: Budgeting for efficient and effective program design.6. General Participation: Time spent on tasks that are procedural in nature and/or not generally assignable to substantive issues.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.NotedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Ariel Strauss201961.7$375D.20-04-023$23,137.5061.7$375.00$23,137.50Ariel Strauss20205.8$395As above; see Comment #1 below.$2,291 5.8$395.00[1]$2,291.00Ivan Jimenez20195.3$245Res. ALJ-357; see Comment #2 below$1,298.50 5.3$245.00$1,298.50James Birkelund20195.5$495D.20-02-061$2,722.50 5.5$495.00$2,722.50James Birkelund20203.2$495As above. $1,5843.2$495.00$1,584.00Paul Chernick201910.7$400Resolution ALJ-357; see Comment 3 below.$4,280 10.7$400.00$4,280.00Amy Umaretiya20197$220Resolution ALJ-357; see Comment 4 below.$1,540 7$220.00$1,540.00Subtotal: $36,853.50Subtotal: $36,853.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION**ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Ivan Jimenez20190.7$122.550% of 2019 Rate $85.750.7$122.50$85.75Ariel Strauss 202012.2$197.550% of 2020 Rate $2.21212.2$197.50$2,409.50James Birkelund20207.6$247.550% of 2020 Rate $1,8817.6$247.50$1,881.00Subtotal: $4,376.43Subtotal: $4,376.25TOTAL REQUEST: $41,229.93[2]TOTAL AWARD: $41,229.75 *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 explanationAriel S. StraussMarch 2012282230NoIvan R. JimenezDecember 2016313644NoJames M. BirkelundMarch 2000206328NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/CommentAttachment 1Time Sheet Records with Allocation of Hours by IssueAttachment 2Resumé / Professional Qualifications of Paul L. ChernickAttachment 3Resumé / Professional Qualifications of Amy J. UmaretiyaComment 12020 Rate for Attorney Ariel S. StraussMr. Strauss’ rate in D.18-07-036 was set at $375 per hour. In addition, we are asking for a 5% step increase for Mr. Strauss, resulting in a 2020 rate in this case of $395 per hour (375*1.05, rounded to the nearest five, per D.13-05-009). Resolutions ALJ-357 states: “It is reasonable to allow individuals an annual ‘step increase’ of 5%, twice within each experience level and capped at the maximum rate for that level, as authorized by D.07-01-009.” Mr. Strauss who is in the 8-12 years of experience bracket has not yet received any step increases in this experience ment 2Hourly Rate for Attorney Ivan R. JimenezSBUA seeks an hourly rate for the work of attorney Ivan Jimenez of $245 for his work in 2019. SBUA made an identical request in A.18-10-007, A.18-01-012, and A.18-11-003, and pending a decision on those compensation claims, the same hourly rate will apply here.The requested rate reflects Mr. Jimenez’s advancement from an attorney with 0-2 years of experience to an attorney in the next rate bracket of 3-4 years of experience. For 2019, the PUC compensated attorneys with 3-4 yrs. of experience in the range of $235-$270 per hour. Resolution ALJ-357. Mr. Jimenez’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 2019 range of rates for his level of experience, and is in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines in D.05-11-031. Mr. Jimenez’s consistent experience working on behalf of intervenors at the Commission further justifies the requested rate. He first started practicing at the Commission in 2015 as a summer legal intern for the Greenlining Institute. From 2016-2018, Mr. Jimenez spent two years representing the Brightline Defense Project as an intervenor. In 2018-2019, representing SBUA in numerous Commission proceedings. Mr. Jimenez’s requested rate of $245 also falls in the bottom half of the approved range of rates for his experience level set forth in ALJ-Res. 357. For these reasons, the Commission should find Mr. Jimenez’s requested rate in 2019 to be ment 3Hourly Rate for Expert Paul L. ChernickSBUA seeks an hourly rate for expert Paul Chernick of $400 for his work in 2019. SBUA made an identical request in A.18-11-03, A.18-11-005, and A.18-02-016, et al. with a requested rate of $390 for Mr. Chernick’s work in 2018 escalated by a Cost-of-Living Adjustment to $400 in 2019. Pending a decision on those compensation claims, the same 2019 hourly rate will apply here.Mr. Chernick has been an expert, consultant, and analyst since 1977 – a period of over 40 years – specializing throughout that time in utility and energy matters. Mr. Chernick is a leading expert in the field with exceptionally strong credentials. He has acted as an expert witness, submitted reports, and/or testified in over 230 utility-related proceedings at PUCs, courts, and other tribunals. He has a national and international reputation for providing expert support to companies and organizations in utility matters at Public Utility Commissions. Additionally, Mr. Chernick is the author or co-author of over 40 publications or articles dealing with utility and energy issues, and he has prior experience testifying at the CPUC on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel in 1990.Since 1986, Mr. Chernick has served as the President of Resource Insight, Inc. From 1981-1986, he served as a Research Associate at Analysis and Inference, Inc., and he started his career from 1977-1981 as a Utility Rate Analyst for the Massachusetts Attorney General in 1977. Mr. Chernick has two degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a Master of Science, Technology and Policy Program, February 1978, and a Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering Department, June 1974.A copy of Mr. Chernick’s professional qualifications is included herewith as Attachment #2. Mr. Chernick’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 2019 range of rates for his level of experience, and is in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines in D. 05-11-031. The reasonableness of the $400 rate is confirmed when compared to the rates the Commission has approved for other experts with comparable qualifications and experience in the energy industry and administrative proceedings. See PUC § 1806; guidelines in D.05-11-031. For example, the Commission granted an hourly rate of $435 for work performed by A4NR’s expert, Richard Wolfe, in 2018. D.18-10-050. Mr. Wolfe is a founding and principle consultant for his company (Resero Consulting) and has over 30 years of experience as an expert and consultant. Id., at pp. 30-31. By comparison, Mr. Chernick is a founding and principal consultant for his company (Resource Insight) but with over 40 years of experience and is requesting a rate considerably lower ($35 less an hour) than Mr. Wolfe in 2018 and rates have gone up in 2019. The Commission also granted an hourly rate of $395 for work performed by TURN’s expert, Bruce Lacy, in 2017. D.18-10-045. Mr. Lacy has approximately 34 years of experience as an expert in 2017, slightly less experience than Mr. Chernick and rates have increased since 2017. See D.11-03-022, p. 12 (Mr. Lacy had 28 years of experience in 2011). Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Lacy are apt comparisons because both are colleagues with high levels of experience in energy law and administrative proceedings, like Mr. Chernick. If anything, Mr. Chernick has been even more single-mindedly focused his career in the utility field than these other two experts. Mr. Chernick should be compensated at a high level within Resolution ALJ-357, given his strong qualifications, extensive experience, and favorable comparisons with colleagues.In sum, the requested 2019 hourly rates for services provided by Mr. Chernick in this proceeding are justified on the years of experience this expert has in the energy industry based on the schedule of hourly rates adopted by the Commission in Resolution ALJ-357 for experts with comparable experience. For 2019, the PUC compensated expert with 13+ yrs. of experience in the range of $185-$455 per hour. Resolution ALJ-357. Mr. Chernick’s requested rate of $400 is within the adopted range and represents approximately the 80th percentile between $185 and $455. In light of his 40+ years of experience and credentials and comparisons with colleagues, the requested rate is clearly reasonable and consistent with the range adopted by the ment 4Hourly Rate for Expert Amy J. UmaretiyaSBUA seeks an hourly rate for expert Amy Umaretiya of $220 for her work in 2019. SBUA made an identical request in A.18-11-05 and A.18-07-024. Pending a decision on those compensation claims, the same 2019 hourly rate will apply here.Ms. Umaretiya’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 2019 range of rates for her level of experience, and is in accordance with the Commission’s guidelines in D.05-11-031. For 2019, the PUC compensated experts with 0-6 years of experience in the range of $155-$220 per hour. Resolution ALJ-357. Mr. Umaretiya’s CV is included as Attachment #3. Her role in this case included research and analysis of costs and barriers and developing SBUA’s positions on program design, incentive structures, and ME&O. Ms. Umaretiya has been involved in numerous public utility proceedings, including related to the commercialization of microgrids, decarbonization of buildings, and general rate cases. Her responsibilities at Resources Insights, Inc., more broadly, include conducting research and qualitative and quantitative analyses in areas relating to planning, regulation and restructuring of the electric power and natural gas industries and providing expert testimony, strategic advice, and litigation support. Prior to Resources Insight, Inc., her experiences extending back to 2015 include working on residential energy consumption and developing a financing model for energy-efficient home renovations, evaluating and working on MIT Future of Nuclear Energy study, and determining the feasibility and potential applications of renewable energy technologies in high latitude environments. Her qualifications include a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Arizona State University State University in 2016. She also graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Master’s of Science degree in Technology and Policy in 2019.In sum, the requested 2019 hourly rates for services provided by Ms. Umaretiya’s in this proceeding are justified on the years of experience this expert has, based on her substantial experience in the energy and utility field, and based on the schedule of hourly rates adopted by the Commission in Resolution ALJ-357 for experts with her level of experience. Comment 5Waiver of CostsSBUA is not claiming any office costs in this request or reimbursements for other expenses. SBUA has used electronic mail communication, phone, and conference calls to the extent possible to reduce costs and keep overall costs to a minimum.D. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1]We accept the requested 2019 Attorney rate of $395.00 for Ariel Strauss. This is based on his 2018 Attorney rate of $375.00, with the addition of the first 5% step-increase in the 8-12 years of experience range rounded to the neared $5 per D.08-04-010.[2]The submitted timesheets contained an error that presented itself in the requested total. The correct amount is $41,229.75.PART IV:OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTSWithin 30 days after service of this Claim, Commission Staff or any other party may file a response to the Claim (see § 1804(c))A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim?NoB. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTSmall Business Utility Advocates has made a substantial contribution to D.20-03-027.The requested hourly rates for Small Business Utility Advocates’ representatives are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $41,229.75.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.ORDERSmall Business Utility Advocates shall be awarded $41,229.75.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southwest Gas Company, and Southern California Edison Company shall pay Small Business Utility Advocates their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional gas and electric revenues for the 2019 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. If such data is unavailable, the most recent gas and electric revenue data shall be used. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning August 19, 2020, the 75th day after the filing of Small Business Utility Advocates’ request, and continuing until full payment is made.The comment period for today’s decision is waived.This decision is effective today.Dated February 11, 2021 at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJER PresidentMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMA CommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2102023 Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D2003027Proceeding(s):R1901011Author:ALJs Rizzo and McKinneyPayer(s):Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southwest Gas Company, and Southern California Edison Company.Intervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceSmall Business Utility Advocates6/5/2020$49,432.25$41,229.75N/AThe total contained an error on the Preparation section for Ivan Jimenez. The discrepancies in the total is due to the calculation error in the submitted timesheets.Hourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedIvan JimenezAttorney$2452019$245.00Ariel StraussAttorney$3752019$375.00Ariel StraussAttorney$3952020$395.00JamesBirkelundAttorney$4952019$495.00JamesBirkelundAttorney$4952020$495.00PaulChernickExpert$4002019$400.00Amy UmaretiyaExpert$2202019$220.00(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download