California

?ALJ/KK3/BRC/mphPROPOSED DECISIONAgenda ID#18284RatesettingDecision BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Authority to Implement Economic Development Rates.Application 17-02-008DECISIOIN GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE SMALL BUSINESS UTILITY ADVOCATES FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 19-07-003Intervenor: Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA) For contribution to Decision (D.) 19-07-003 Claimed: $22,353.25Awarded: $22,352.75Assigned Commissioner: Martha Guzman AcevesAssigned ALJ: Katherine MacDonald and Brian StevensPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: Decision (D.) 19-07-003 adopts the Settlement Agreement between San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), California Public Advocates Office, The Utility Reform Network, Utility Consumers’ Action Network, Small Business Utility Advocates, the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets, and Direct Access Customer Coalition to authorizes SDG&E to implement a Standard Economic Development Rate (EDR) that is substantially similar to those that are currently being offered in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company service territories. 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:Sept. 5, 2017Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed:Oct. 4, 2017Verified 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:June 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:A.18-11-005Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling:June 24, 2019Verified11. 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.19-07-003Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: July 15, 2019Verified15. File date of compensation request:Sept. 13, 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.98-04-059)Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC DiscussionA. Scope of EDR Program for Smaller CustomersThe Commission approved a settlement that expanded the scope of the EDR program to smaller customers by providing that: “Eligible non-residential, non-governmental customers with demand of equal or less than 150 kW have a 10 MW total program enrollment cap.” D.19-07-003, p. 6; see also Settlement Agreement at D.19-07-003, Appendix 1, Att. A, p. 4 (expanding eligibility for customers with less than 150Kw to participate in the EDR program). SBUA argued that “small businesses make up the majority of SDG&E’s commercial customer class and are an important economic driver in the service territory” and therefore “SBUA sought a 10 MW participation cap for eligible non-residential, non-governmental customers with demand of less than 150 kW.” D.19-07-003, Appendix 1, p. 6.One of SBUA’s goals in the proceeding was to ensure the approved EDR programs would be “well-designed to encourage small business participation.” SBUA Motion for Party Status, May 19, 2017, p. 4.VerifiedB. Settlement Negotiations, Coordination, and AdoptionThe parties, including SBUA, engaged in extensive settlement negotiations to reach a compromise of the issues. The Commission agreed SBUA’s role in the proceeding helped ensure the Settlement Agreement broadly represented affected ratepayers, including small businesses: “Together, the Settling Parties fairly represent the affected interests,” and recognizing that “SBUA is a nonprofit organization that represents, protects, and promotes the interests of small business utility customers.” D.19-07-003, p. 13.SBUA is a signatory to the Settlement Agreement and actively participated throughout the proceeding in negotiations, joint filings, hearings, and joint efforts to adopt the Settlement Agreement. See Joint Case Management Statement, filed August 29, 2017; Joint Meet-and-Confer Statement, filed May 10, 2018; Joint Motion for Settlement, filed June 25, 2018; Joint Reply to Opening Comments on Motion for Adoption of Settlement Agreement, filed August 9, 2018; Joint Opening Comments on Proposed Decision, June 27, 2019; Joint Reply Comments on Proposed Decision, July 2, 2019. SBUA participated in the proceeding “to provide a voice and advocacy for small businesses” and pursued this goal in settlement negotiations. SBUA Motion for Party Status, May 19, 2017, p. 2. VerifiedC. Other Issues (reasonableness of costs, fairness to ratepayers, enhanced EDR, etc.)The Commission adopted a Settlement Agreement that addressed numerous other issues, including, for example, the reasonableness of costs to ratepayers and the total program cap: “The Settling Parties agree in the Settlement Agreement that the total participation cap is 40 MW” (compared to 50 MW originally propose). D. 19-07-003, p. 6. The Settlement Agreement also eliminates the enhanced EDR program, prohibits renewals for the discounts at the end of the five-year period, and provides for liquidated damages to be collected from customers that misrepresent facts or commit fraud in participating. See D.19-07-003, App. 1, pp. 9-10.SBUA joined the other settling parties in negotiating and entering compromises on the above issues, recognizing that they impact the costs and fairness of the EDR programs to all ratepayers, including small commercial customers. As SBUA argued, “Not only will EDRs directly affect small commercial customers found eligible to participate in the programs, but EDRs will affect other small businesses as ratepayers as a result of any attendant revenue shortfalls and economic attraction and retention policies.” SBUA Motion for Party Status, May 19, 2017, p. 2.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?Yesb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yesc.If so, provide name of other parties: California Public Advocates Office, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN), were all parties to the proceeding.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: SBUA sought 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. SBUA’s advocacy therefore differed from other groups, and SBUA was the only party who single-mindedly focused exclusively on the interests of small commercial customers. In addition, SBUA met and conferred extensively with Cal Advocates, TURN, and UCAN, as well as the other parties (i.e., the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and Direct Access Customer Coalition). SBUA coordinated with other parties in settlement negotiations to minimize duplication of efforts, as well as for the purposes of drafting and filing joint pleadings (e.g., Joint Case Management Statement, Meet-and-Confer Statement, Motion for Adoption of Settlement, Reply to Shell’s Opposition to Settlement Agreement, Opening Comments on the Proposed Decision, Reply Comments on Proposed Decision).For these reasons, the Commission should find that SBUA’s perspectives and goals were necessarily different from other parties, and supplemented, not duplicated, any efforts on common issues, and the Commission should find that all of SBUA’s hours are reasonable and should be fully compensated.NotedPART III:REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: SBUA’s main objective for the proceeding was to protect and advance the interests of small business ratepayers that in the past have been underrepresented in rate design proceedings, including those related to EDR programs. The settlement is beneficial because it reaches a reasonable compromise among SDG&E and small business interests. The Commission adopted the Settlement Agreement, which includes provisions that benefit small commercial customers, although precise dollar values are difficult to attribute. For example, SBUA sought to expand the EDR programs to smaller customers and the Settlement Agreement achieved this by provided a 10 MW participation cap for eligible non-residential, non-governmental customers with demand of less than 150 kW (compared to the initial Application’s proposal of 5 MW). Thus, the settlement sets the foundation to expand EDR benefits to small businesses ratepayers in SDG&E’s territory. Considering EDR programs can be an effective tool to help customers maintain their business vitality, this expansion of the cap for smaller customers is a substantial benefit. SBUA also participated in limiting the costs of the programs, which potentially saves millions of dollars for all ratepayers. For these reasons, the Commission should find that SBUA’s efforts here have been valuable.Notedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed: SBUA devoted approximately 56.7 hours of attorney time to this proceeding, which is reasonable considering the proceeding involved extensive settlement negotiations as well as a prehearing conference, the submission of various pleadings, and an evidentiary hearing on the Settlement Agreement.SBUA’s senior attorney and President James Birkelund served as principal counsel in this proceeding. In this capacity, he was responsible for developing and managing SBUA’s litigation strategy, legal positions, assigning tasks to the SBUA team, researching, analyzing, and drafting various SBUA positions, and reviewing and finalizing settlement positions on behalf of SBUA. SBUA’s attorney Lillian Rafii, a mid-level attorney, was responsible for research, drafting pleadings, and attending various settlement calls. One other attorney, Ariel Strauss, worked on this proceeding (after Ms. Rafii had taken a new job position elsewhere). Mr. Strauss primarily assisted at the end of the proceeding in attending hearings on the settlement approval. SBUA submits that it made significant contributions to the proceeding 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 a complex case with EDR tariffs. Therefore, SBUA seeks compensation for all of the hours recorded by our attorneys and experts and included in this request.Notedc. Allocation of hours by issue: SBUA has assigned the following issue codes:Issue A - Scope of EDR Program for Smaller Customers – 15.8 hours or 28%Issue B - Settlement Negotiations, Coordination, and Adoption – 19.7 hours or 35%Issue C - Other Issues (reasonableness of costs, fairness to ratepayers, enhanced EDR, etc.) – 12.3 hours or 22%Issue D - General Participation (coordination, procedural?issues) – 8.9 hours or 16%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 $James Birkelund201712.6$450D.18-07-036$5,67012.6$450$5,670.00James Birkelund20189.1$485A.16-06-013; see Comment #1$4,4149.1$485$4,413.50 [2]James Birkelund20196.4$495As above; escalated by a 2.35% step increase per Res. ALJ-357$3,1686.4$495$3,168.00Lillian Rafii201715.7$230D.18-07-036$3,61115.7$230$3,611.00Lillian Rafii20188.6$235D.18-07-036$2,0218.6$235$2,021.00Ariel Strauss20193.6$375Res. ALJ-357; see Comment #2$1,3503.6$375 [1]$1,350.00Subtotal: $20,234Subtotal: $20,233.50INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Lillian Rafii20171.9$11550% of 2017 rate$218.51.9$115$218.50James Birkelund20181$242.550% of 2018 rate$242.501$242.50$242.50James Birkelund20196.7$247.550% of 2019 rate$11,658.256.7$247.50$1,658.25 [2]Subtotal: $2,119.25Subtotal: $2,119.25TOTAL REQUEST: $22,353.25TOTAL AWARD: $22,352.75 [2] *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 explanationJames M. BirkelundMarch 2000206328NoLillian I. RafiiDecember 2013295368NoAriel S. StraussMarch 2012282230NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/CommentAttachment 1Timesheet for James BirkelundAttachment 2Timesheet for Lillian Rafii Attachment 3Timesheet for Ariel StraussAttachment 4Resume of Ariel StraussComment 1Mr. Birkelund’s 2018 rate of $485 hour is set in A.16-06-013 with the proposed decision issued by ALJs Michelle Cooke and Patrick Doherty on SBUA’s compensation claim, which is on the consent agenda for the Commission, and pending issuance of a final decision, the same 2018 rate should apply here. Comment 2SBUA seeks an hourly rate for the work of regulatory counsel Ariel Strauss of $375 for his work in 2019. Mr. Strauss’ 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. Strauss received his J.D. in 2013 and in 2019 he was in his eighth year of legal experience. For 2019, the PUC compensated attorneys with 8-12 years of experience in the range of $350-$410 per hour. Resolution ALJ-357. Mr. Strauss’s requested rate is in the bottom half of this rate range.Mr. Strauss’ CV is included as Attachment 4. He graduated from University of Los Angeles School of Law with a Juris Doctor in 2011. His academic qualifications also include a Masters of Arts degree from UCLA’s School of Public Policy in 2011 and a Bachelors of Arts degree from Brandeis University in 2007. His experience as an attorney is broad and includes: current work protecting small business interests in utility proceedings at the CPUC, including in EV rate-setting, grid hardening cost recovery, building decarbonization, and climate change adaption proceedings; extensive experience engaging on administrative law matters and proceedings, including at the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office; experience working with municipal power agencies (Northern California Power Agency and Alameda Municipal Power); experience advising solar microgrid companies; and compliance work under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). In sum, the requested 2019 hourly rates for services provided by Mr. Strauss in this proceeding are justified on the years of experience this attorney has, including on energy matters, and based on the schedule of hourly rates adopted by the Commission in Resolution ALJ-357 for attorneys with comparable ment 3CostsSBUA 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 filing and meeting costs and keep overall costs to a minimum.D. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments ItemReason[1]Ariel Strauss has been an active member of the State Bar of California since March 2012. In 2019 Mr. Strauss was in his eighth year of legal experience. According to the Commission’s guidelines in resolution ALJ-357, the range for an attorney with eight years of experience in 2019 is $350 to $410 per hour. Mr. Strauss is awarded a first-time rate of $375 per hour.[2]Mathematical error corrected.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.19-07-003.The requested hourly rates for Small Business Utility Advocates’ representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $22,352.75.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 $22,352.75.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall pay the Small Business Utility Advocates the total award. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning November 27, 2019, 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 _____________, at San Francisco, California.APPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D.19-07-003Proceeding(s):A.17-02-008Author:ALJ MacDonald and ALJ StevensPayer(s):San Diego Gas & Electric CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceSmall Business Utility AdvocatesSeptember 13, 2019$22,353.25$22,352.75N/AN/AHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedJamesBirkelundAttorney$4502017$450JamesBirkelundAttorney$4852018$485JamesBirkelundAttorney$4952019$495LillianRafiiAttorney$2302017$230LillianRafiiAttorney$2352018$235ArielStraussAttorney$3752019$375(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download