Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?MBL/nd3Date of Issuance 9/13/2021Decision 21-09-012 September 9, 2021BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Emergency Disaster Relief Program.Rulemaking 1803011DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO UTILITY CONSUMERS’ ACTION NETWORKFOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 2007011Intervenor: Utility Consumers’ Action NetworkFor contribution to Decision (D.)?2007011Claimed: $15,183.25Awarded: $15,422.25Assigned Commissioner: Marybel BatjerAssigned ALJ: Colin RizzoPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA.Brief description of Decision: The decision required California’s facilitiesbased wireless providers to develop comprehensive resiliency strategies to prepare for catastrophic disasters and power outages. Specifically, the decision address five different issues. First, it defined resiliency in the context of emergency services management by the wireless providers. Second, the decision adopted a 72hour backup power requirement for the wireless providers’ facilities, to ensure minimum service coverage is maintained during disasters or commercial grid outages. Third, further required the wireless providers to file Communications Resiliency Plans with the Commission that detail their ability to maintain a minimum level of service and coverage during a disaster or a commercial power grid outage. Fourth, the decision permitted short term use of diesel generation as a primary backup source. Fifth, the decision directed wireless providers to submit annual emergency operations plans. The decision promulgated those requirements for the facilitiesbased wireless providers for their facilities in Tier 2 and Tier 3 High Fire Threat Districts only. 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:November 20, 2019Verified2.Other specified date for NOI:3.Date NOI filed:December 20, 2019Verified4.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.1701012Verified6.Date of ALJ ruling:April 24, 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.1701012Verified10.Date of ALJ ruling:April 24, 2017Verified11.Based on another CPUC determination (specify):12.Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§?1804(c)):13.Identify Final Decision:D.2007011Verified14.Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: July 20, 2020Verified15.File date of compensation request:September 18, 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.9804059): Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC DiscussionSummary:UCAN sought to intervene in this proceeding to protect the interest of California ratepayers in general and San Diego area rate payers in particular, in part from the prospective of recent and historic fire and PSPS events in the Southern California Area. UCAN is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit public benefit corporation dedicated to protecting and representing the interests of residential and small business customers in the San Diego Gas & Electric service territory. UCAN has a thirtysix year history of intervening in CPUC proceedings[.]UCAN Notice of Intent To Claim Compensation (filed 12/20/19) p.?2UCAN intends to participate on all Phase 2 issues with a particular emphasis on addressing these issues from the prospective of the recent and historic experiences in the Southern California area. UCAN Notice of Intent To Claim Compensation (filed 12/20/19) p.?4NotedIssue 1 Jurisdictional IssuesUCAN has a long history of participating is Commission proceedings relating to wireless service providers, including UCAN’s (and its current counsel’s) involvement in the OII against AT&T’s corporate predecessor, Cingular Wireless, resulting in D. 0406062, ordering over $20?million in penalties and reparations and forming the bedrock of the Commission’s jurisdiction over wireless providers. This Decision asserted jurisdiction over wireless providers based on the Commission’s long history of action involving wireless providers, as well as the state and federal regulatory framework, including extensive discussion of the action against Cingular and subsequent appeal.D 2007011 at p.1433, with specific discussion of the Cingular case at p.?28 and 32. UCAN’s reply comments discuss the support for the Commission’s jurisdiction, including its experience in the Cingular case. “Battles over the Commission’s jurisdiction over wireless and other “nontraditional” communications companies have been fought for decades and the Commission has won many of those battles, much to the benefit of this state’s consumers. This Commission has successfully asserted jurisdiction over wireless service provider’s business practices, including imposing over $20,000,000 in penalties and restitution over unfair customer service practices against a wireless carrier in D.0409062 and D. 0703048.”UCAN Reply Comments p.?23 VerifiedIssue 2 Applicability of The Order In order to maximize the benefits of the resiliency requirements, UCAN sought to ensure that they were applied to the actual infrastructure providers on whom various service providers rely for the provision of wireless service. The Order directs its scope to the actual facilities based wireless carriers, rather than other carriers who provide service through the infrastructure of facilities based carriers. D.2007011, p.?5356In supporting the scope of the applicability of the Order, the Decision notes, “As UCAN makes clear, these resiliency efforts will mean little if other companies they rely upon to support their infrastructure do not adhere to the same requirements.”D.200711 at p.?55UCAN’s Opening Comments also noted “The ultimate goal of this proceeding is to solve the problem that ‘emergency calls and notifications often fail during disasters such as wildfires, floods, and earthquakes, leaving the public in a communications void and, at critical times, in peril.’ In order to promote this goal, the Commission must include all the critical links in the chain that carries this communication.”UCAN Opening Brief p.?2VerifiedIssue 3 72 Hour Backup Power RequirementWhile some parties, such as the Wireless Industry Association, advocated for shorter duration back up power requirement, and others advocated for a broad 72?hours back up requirement across the whole system, UCAN advocated for a 72hour backup power requirement limited to tier 2 and 3 High Fire Threat Districts as the most costeffective way to maximize system resilience. UCAN’s position was what the Commission adopted. D.200711 at p.?8992“We agree with Cal Advocates, Verizon, and UCAN that this rule should be narrowed to Tier 2 and Tier 3 High Fire Threat Districts to focus efforts and investments on the communities that are most at risk.” D.200711 at p.?92“Cal Advocates, Verizon, and UCAN suggest the requirement should be narrowed to Tier 2 and 3 High Fire Threat Districts to focus investments on the communities that are most at risk.”D.200711 at p.?91“We direct the wireless providers to maintain service through various technological means to ensure that customers in Tier 2 and Tier 3 High Fire Threat Districts have access to 72hour backup power during the upcoming wildfires and deenergization events.”D.200711 at p.?89In briefing, UCAN noted that there “are some compelling arguments that immediate or short term imposition of this requirement over 100% of provider’s systems may be excessively costly and logistically challenging.?.?.?. A prehardening strategy is necessary, and these key Tier 2 and 3 locations should be prioritized above later deployment outside of these specific areas.”UCAN Reply Brief p.?3“While UCAN believes the resiliency requirements should be broadly imposed, including the requirement for 72hour backup power, UCAN suggests that communications providers be permitted flexibility in meeting this requirement.”UCAN Opening Brief p.?2VerifiedIssue 4 Emergency Operation Plans While many wireless providers sought to avoid a specific uniform standard for Emergency Operations Plans, UCAN and other consumer advocates supported the ALJ’s proposal for specific standards, which is what the Commission adopted. D.2007011, p.?114119The Decision specifically UCAN’s support for the ALJ’s Emergency Operation Plan proposal. D.2007011, p.?115UCAN did advocate that the providers be required to participate in any DeEnergization Exercise conducted by the local utility. (UCAN opening comments p.?3) While the Commission did not specific adopt this proposal, it did require that “Each wireless provider shall conduct or participate in an annual emergency preparedness exercise to test its emergency procedures[.] D.2007011 at p.?118. 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: As noted in the Decision itself, some, but not all, of UCAN’s positions were also supported by Cal Advocates and TURN. Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: UCAN sought to focus on wireless resiliency issues from the prospective provided by recent fire and Public Safety Power Shutoff events in the San Diego area and sought ways to best balance the needs for resiliency with the potential costs that resiliency efforts could impose of all wireless consumers. While other groups, including TURN and the Public Advocates office also advocated in the proceeding from the consumer prospective, UCAN choose to limit its focus to issue on which it believed it could bring a unique prospective and legal experience. As indicated by the relatively modest number of hours spent on this proceeding, UCAN did not seek to comment on every issue and left many issues to be covered only by the Public Advocates Office, TURN and other consumer groups in an effort to minimize any potential for duplication of efforts. VerifiedPART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):CPUC Discussiona.Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: UCAN is requesting reimbursement of $15,183.25. This includes time for UCAN’s attorney and paralegal. UCAN urges the Commission to find these costs reasonable in light of its substantial contribution to the record detailed in Part II (A) above. Because UCAN narrowly focused on issues on which it has specific experience and which directly impacted it members, UCAN urges the Commission to find the costs of UCAN’s participation reasonable in light of all the related benefits to ratepayers, including adoption of the 72hour power requirements in tier 2 and 3 areas and comprehensive emergency operations plans. The Commission finds the costs claimed as reasonableb.Reasonableness of hours claimed: UCAN is requesting reimbursement of 23.9?hours for Mr.?Biddle, and 8.75?hours for Ms.?Jane Krikorian for their substantive work in this proceeding. The amounts listed here are for hours spent reading the OIR and resolutions, writing the motion for party status and comments on OIR, examining issues, reviewing orders, staff reports and utility proposals, preparing opening and reply briefs and comments on the proposed decision. The hours above also exclude time claimed for NOI and intervenor compensation request preparation. The Commission finds hours claimed as reasonable.c.Allocation of hours by issue: 2.758%1.General Prep (GP)2.508%2.Hearings, Workshops, and Conferences (HWC)27.4084%3.Filings (F)32.65100%The Commission finds allocation of hours as reasonable.Specific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Lee Biddle20192.5$480See Comment 1$1,2002.5$480[1]$1,200.00Lee Biddle202021.4$480See Comment 1$10,27221.4$490[2]$10,486.00Jane Krikorian20187.25$200D.1904038$1,4507.25$200$1,450.00Jane Krikorian20191.5$215D.2007031$322.501.5$215$322.50Subtotal: $13,244.50Subtotal: $13,458.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Lee Biddle 20192.5$240See Comment 1$6.002.5$240$600.00 Lee Biddle20205$240See Comment 1$1,2005$245[2]$1,225.00 Jane Krikorian2019.5$107.50D.190403853.75.5$107.50$53.75 Courtney CookSloan20201$85D.2007031$851$85$85.00 Subtotal: $1,938.75Subtotal: $1,963.75TOTAL REQUEST: $15,183.25TOTAL AWARD: $15,422.25 *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 explanationWilliam Lee Biddle2001217128noAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachmentor Comment #Description/Comment1Certificate of Service Comment 1UCAN is requesting a COLA increase for William “Lee” Biddle hours in 2019. Mr.?Biddle has 19 years of experience. Mr.?Biddle’s rate for 2018 is $470 determined in D.1908033. Based off Resolution ALJ357 ruling of a 2.35% COLA increase in 2019, UCAN requests the rate of $480 for the hours working in 2019.CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1] COLA Adjustments for Mr.?BiddleUCAN is requesting a COLA increase for William “Lee” Biddle hours in 2019. Mr.?Biddle has 19 years of experience. Based off Resolution ALJ357 ruling of a 2.35% COLA increase in 2019, UCAN requests the rate of $480 for the hours working in 2019. The Commission adopts the rate as reasonable.[2] 2020 COLA Adjustments for Mr.?BiddleWe corrected the 2020 COLA rate for Mr.?Biddle, from $480 to $490. A new rate for Mr.?Biddle is adopted 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))A.Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim?ment Period: Was the 30day comment period waived (see?Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTUtility Consumers’ Action Network has made a substantial contribution to D.2007011.The requested hourly rates for Utility Consumers’ Action Network’s 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 $15,422.25.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812.ORDERUtility Consumers’ Action Network shall be awarded $15,422.25.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, the Commission’s Intervenor Compensation Fund shall pay Utility Consumers’ Action 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 December 2, 2020, the 75th day after the filing of Utility Consumers’ Action 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 9, 2021, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJERPresidentDARCIE HOUCKMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMACommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2109012Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D2007011Proceeding(s):R1803011Authors:ALJ RizzoPayer(s):Commission’s Intervenor Compensation Fund.Intervenor InformationIntervenorDateClaim FiledAmountRequestedAmountAwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceUtility Consumers’ Action Network9/18/20$15,183.25$15,422.25N/ASee CPUC COLA AdjustmentsHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedWilliam “Lee”BiddleAttorney$4802019$480William “Lee”BiddleAttorney$4802020$490JaneKrikorianAdvocate$2002018$200JaneKrikorianAdvocate$2152019$215CourtneyCookSloanAdvocate$1702020$170(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download