California

?PD1/nd3Date of Issuance: 9/11/2020Decision 20-09-007 September 10, 2020BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAApplication for Approval of Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Commercial Electric Vehicle Rate. (U39E.) Application 1811003Decision granting compensation to ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND for substantial contribution to Decision 1910055Intervenor: Environmental Defense FundFor contribution to Decision (D.) 1910055Claimed: $35,863.00Awarded: $35,863.00Assigned Commissioner: Clifford RechtschaffenAssigned ALJ: Patrick DohertyPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUESA. Brief description of Decision: D. 1910055 approves the application of Pacific Gas and Electric to move forward with a new commercial electric vehicle rate and the creation of a new commercial class of customers. The decision to approve the rate is based on the stipulation between PG&E and the Public Advocates Office (PAO) and makes a change to that stipulation in that, PG&E must not collect any nonmarginal distribution costs through the new rates. The decision also requires PG&E to file an application for a realtime electric vehicle commercial rate within 12 months from the date of the decision. Finally, the decision modifies the original overage subscription charge proposal and replaces it with a different scheme. 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:January 22, 2019Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed:February 19, 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:R. 1206013Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling:February 25, 2013Verified 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. A. 1710007/008Verified10. Date of ALJ ruling: September 10, 2018Verified11. 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. 1910055Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: October 27, 2019October 28, 201915. File date of compensation request:December 19, 2019Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesAdditional Comments on Part I:#Intervenor’s Comment(s)CPUC Discussion9/10EDF has asked for a ruling on whether EDF can show “significant financial hardship” in A. 1911003. Disposition of that request is still pending. NotedPART 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 Discussion1. EDF submitted a response to PG&E’s application on December 7, 2018. 1. “Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application for approval of new commercial rates for load serving electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) on November 5, 2018. The following parties filed timely responses or protests to the application…Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)…” (D. 1910055 at 3.)Noted2. EDF participated in the prehearing conference on January 22, 2019. 2. “A prehearing conference (PHC) was held on January 22, 2019.” (D. 1910055 at 3.)Noted 3. EDF submitted opening testimony on PG&E’s application in early April. 3. “EDF, Joint CCAs, Public Advocates, Evgo, VTA, NRDC, Tesla, and SBUA served direct testimony by April 5, 2019.” (D. 1910055 at 3.) Noted4. EDF submitted reply testimony on May 3.4. “EDF, PG&E, SBUA, and Tesla served rebuttal testimony on May 3, 2019.” (D. 1910055 at 34.) Noted5. EDF participated in the status conference held in May. 5. “A status conference was held on May 14, 2019 to discuss preparations for the evidentiary hearing.” (D. 1910055 at 4.)Noted6. EDF participated in evidentiary hearings on the application. 6. “The evidentiary hearing in this proceeding was held on May 22 and 23, 2019.” (D. 1910055 at 4.)Noted7. EDF submitted opening and reply briefs after evidentiary hearings were concluded. 7. “Opening briefs were filed on June 21, 2019 and reply briefs were filed on July 8, 2019. The matter was considered submitted on July 8, 2019.” (D. 1910055 at 4.)Noted8. EDF was among those parties advocating for a shorter peak period in order to avoid a rate that is too difficult to follow and may lead to a reduction in fuel cost savings. 8. “PG&E originally proposed a 4:00 pm?— 10:00 pm peak period for CEV rates to apply on all days, yearround. Public Advocates, Tesla, and EDF objected to PG&E’s original proposal. After discussions with the parties, PG&E stipulated to a revised peak period of 4:00 p.m.?— 9:00 p.m. for its CEV rates.” (D. 1910055 at 15.)“Other parties [including EDF] also pointed out the consistency with existing peak periods and customer understanding superseded considerations about perfect alignment with marginal costs in this case.” (D. 1910055 at 16.)Verified. See Opening Brief filed June 21, 2019, at 6.9. EDF advocated for inclusion of seasonal differentiation in the rate in order to better reflect power needs and grid conditions. 9. “While some parties had concerns regarding the lack of seasonal differentiation in the CEV rates, PG&E insisted that customer understanding would be enhanced by a relatively simple rate that did not change prices between summer and winter…while seasonal differentiation is a standard element of TOU rates generally, the Commission agrees with the position of various parties that simplicity and consistency in CEV rates is valuable at this nascent stage of transportation electrification…” (D. 1910055 at 1617.)Verified. See Opening Brief filed June 21, 2019, at 7.10. EDF supported PG&E’s subscription charge model as an innovative way to inspire growth in the medium and heavyduty electric vehicle market. 10. “Many parties, including EDF, supported the idea of eliminating fixed charges and demand charges with a subscription charge.” (D. 1910055 at 18.)Verified. See Reply Brief filed on December 07, 2018 at 5. 11. EDF was among those parties opposed the proposal from EVgo and Tesla for an optional energy chargefocused rate for CEV customers. 11. “Public Advocates, EDF, and NRDC oppose the proposal by Tesla and EVgo as well.” (D. 1910055 at 21.)Verified. See Reply Brief filed July 08, 2019 at 5.12. EDF opposed the lack of a dynamic rate option in PG&E’s application, starting in EDF’s initial response. 12. “EDF opposed PG&E’s approach in their initial response to PG&E’s application and in their opening testimony. In its initial response, EDF proposed an optional dynamic rate for those medium and heavyduty CEV customers that believe they would benefit from such a rate. EDF asserts that there would be cost savings and environmental benefits by testing such an optional dynamic rate that warrant its inclusion in PG&E’s proposed CEV rate class.” (D. 1910055 at 26.)Verified. See Opening Brief filed June 21, 2019, at 7.13. EDF pointed to a dynamic rate proposed by SDG&E in 2014 as a possible model, along with robust, associated marketing, education, and outreach. 13. “Specifically, EDF proposes that an optional dynamic rate should resemble a proposal made by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) in Application (A.) 1404014, where hourly energy prices varied according to the dayahead prices for wholesale energy recorded by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). EDF stresses that an effective ME&O campaign by PG&E would be necessary to successfully test a dynamic rate, and that the needs of riskaverse CEV customers should [be] accounted for. EDF notes that this form of dynamic rate has not yet been tested in California for medium and heavyduty CEV customers.” (D. 1910055 at 27.)“EDF proposes that SDG&E’s vehiclegrid integration (VGI) pilot rate, as proposed in SDG&E’s prepared testimony in A. 1404014, be used as a model for a dynamic rate offered by PG&E.”Verified. See Opening Brief filed June 21, 2019, at 46.14. EDF disagreed with PG&E’s assertion that their customers are not interested in a more dynamic rate. 14. “PG&E’s assertion that there is not sufficient customer interest in a dynamic rate is not supported by the findings of the EPRI Study that demonstrated that some customers are interested in more dynamic rate options, including fleet operators that may take advantage of better control technology. At a minimum, the EPRI study concluded that choice and flexibility in rate designs were important to CEV customers and as PG&E states in its testimony, there is no ‘onesizefitsall’ solution.” (D. 1910055 at 27.)Verified. See Reply Brief filed July 08, 2019 at 6.15. EDF’s advocacy for an optional dynamic rate was integral to the Commission’s decision to order a future application proposing such a rate from PG&E. 15. In light of the lack of a dynamic rate proposal that begins to address these critical questions, EDF’s request for a dynamic rate is not ripe for approval in this proceeding. However, the record does reflect some CEV customer interest in a dynamic rate with fluctuating hourly prices, and it is important that CEV customers be given a variety of rates to choose from that help lower their costs. This is in accord with the Commission’s previous guidance in D. 1701006 and state policy generally that seeks to incent widespread transportation electrification and lower the costs of EV ownership and fueling. Therefore, PG&E is ordered to file an application for a dynamic rate option for CEVS and CEVL customers no later than 12 months after the effective date of this decision.” (D. 1910055 at 30.)Verified. See Opening Brief filed June 21, 2019, for initial argument and confirmed in D.1910055 at 30.16. EDF urged effective price signals in the design of this rate that encourage load management?— and to ensure that price signals are passed through.16. “As EDF points out, EVSE operators on a CEV rate that do not manage their load with the price signals adopted in this decision may fail to maximize the environmental and grid benefits of widespread transportation electrification.” (D. 1910055 at 33.)Verified. See Reply Brief filed July 08, 2019 at 6.17. EDF advocated for robust, targeted marketing, education, and outreach. 17. “EDF asserts that PG&E’s planned ME&O effort needs to be robust and welldesigned to ensure successful takeup of the new optional CEV rates, and criticizes PG&E’s existing plan as not concrete enough and lacking in detail…the Commission agrees with EDF and SBUA that a robust ME&O plan is necessary to successfully implement the new CEV rates. The work of the parties and the Commission in this proceeding would be wasted if PG&E’s commercial customers were unaware of the rate and failed to take service on it if they utilize EVSEs.” (D. 1910055 at 3435.)Verified. See Opening Brief filed June 21, 2019, at 5.18. EDF submitted opening and reply comments on the proposed decision issued on September 23, 2019. 18. “Comments were filed on October 14, 2019, and reply comments were filed on October 21, 2019 by SBUA, CALSTART, PG&E, NRDC, ChargePoint, Inc., Tesla, Cal Advocates, EVgo, EDF, and Joint CCAs.” (D. 1910055 at 62.)NotedDuplication 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: NRDC and members in their coalition?— including the Coalition of California Utility Employees, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Plug In America, Greenlots, Siemens, EVBox, Inc., and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of nonduplication: EDF delivered standalone comments and testimony that was independent of other parties. In particular, EDF was the sole advocate for an optional dynamic rate, and was a strong proponent of both load management through robust price signals and a more detailed marketing, education, and outreach plan. EDF’s singular contribution is borne out by the frequent references to EDF’s advocacy in this decision. NotedPART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATIONGeneral Claim of Reasonableness (§?1801 and §?1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: EDF’s costs were reasonable for investigation of the application. The office carefully considered its advocacy during the course of the docket and attempted to use costeffective methods over the course of the proceeding. Notedb. Reasonableness of hours claimed: EDF worked diligently throughout the process to only spend a reasonable and prudent amount of time.Notedc. Allocation of hours by issue: In contributing to this decision, EDF focused on the need for load management, the utility of including an optional dynamic rate, stronger marketing, education, and outreach, having seasonal differentiation, and ensuring an adequate review process. NotedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $Larissa Koehler201815$330Res. ALJ352$4,950.0015$330.00$4,950.00Larissa Koehler 201913.5$330Res. ALJ357$4,455.0013.5$330.00$4,455.00Megan Myers201949.7$340Res. ALJ357$16,898.0049.7$340.00$16,898.00Michael Colvin20196$300Res. ALJ357$1,800.006$300.00$1,800.00Steven Moss201930$220Res. ALJ357$6,600.0030$220.00$6,600.00Subtotal: $34,703.00Subtotal: $34,703.00INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $ Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate Total $Larissa Koehler20196$165Res. ALJ357$990.006$165.00$990.00Megan Myers20191$170Res. ALJ357$170.001$170.00$170.00Subtotal: $1,160.00Subtotal: $1,160.00TOTAL REQUEST: $35,863.00TOTAL AWARD: $35,863.00 *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 explanationLarissa KoehlerJune 2013289513NoMegan MyersDecember 2004233318NoAttachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/Comment1Certificate of Service2Resume of Larissa Koehler3Resume of Megan Myers4Resume of Michael Colvin5Resume of Steven Moss6Allocation of Time for Environmental Defense Fund1. A new rate is requested for Larissa Koehler in the present proceeding, requested in parallel with pending requests in R. 1602007, R. 1410003, and A. 1712011 et al. Ms.?Koehler has been a barred attorney for over 6 years and is requesting a rate in the middle of the range set by ALJ352 and ALJ357. 2. Megan Myers is a legal consultant for EDF with 15 years of experience as an attorney. 3. Michael Colvin is Director of the California Energy program and has over 10 years of experience in clean energy regulatory policy.4. James Fine is a Senior Economist at EDF with over 20 years of relevant experience. 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 30day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?YesFINDINGS OF FACTEnvironmental Defense Fund has made a substantial contribution to D.1910055.The requested hourly rates for Environmental Defense Fund’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 $35,863.00.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util. Code §§?18011812.ORDEREnvironmental Defense Fund shall be awarded $35,863.00.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall pay Environmental Defense Fund 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 March 3, 2020, the 75th day after the filing of Environmental Defense Fund’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 11, 2020, at San Francisco, California.MARYBEL BATJERPresidentLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFENGENEVIEVE SHIROMACommissionersAPPENDIXCompensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision:D2009007Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s):D1910055Proceeding(s):A1811003Author:ALJ Patrick DohertyPayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceEnvironmental Defense Fund December 19, 2019$35,863$35,863.00N/AN/AHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedLarissaKoehlerAttorney$3302018$330.00LarissaKoehlerAttorney$3302019$330.00Megan MyersAttorney$3402019$340.00MichaelColvinExpert$3002019$300.00StevenMossExpert$2202019$220.00(END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download