Docs.cpuc.ca.gov

?ALJ/ML2/mef PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID# 19671Decision BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAOrder Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Continued Implementation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and Related Matters.Rulemaking 18-07-017GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO GREEN POWER INSTITUTE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 20-05-006Intervenor: Green Power InstituteFor contribution to: Decisions (D.) 20-05-006Claimed: $83,639Awarded: $81,586.25Assigned Commissioner: Clifford RechtschaffenAssigned ALJ: Manisha LakhanpalPART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES A. Brief description of Decisions: D.20-05-006 adopting a new standard offer contract for QFs of 20 MW or less pursuant to PURPA.Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:IntervenorCPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference (PHC):September 27, 2018Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed:October 19, 2018Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed?YesShowing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):D.19-12-019Verified 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status?YesShowing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:10. Date of ALJ ruling:11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):D.19-12-019Verified12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):13. Identify Final Decision:D.20-05-006Verified14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: May 15, 2020Verified15. File date of compensation request:June 26, 2020Verified16. Was the request for compensation timely?YesPART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONDid the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059))Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)CPUC Discussion(Please note that Attachment 2 includes a list issue areas, and of GPI Pleadings relevant to this Claim.)1. Avoided Cost Determination.The GPI made substantial contributions to D.20-05-006 by arguing in favor of alternative methodologies for the determination of avoided costs to be used in a new Standard Offer Contract for QFs. We opposed the use of historical data for pricing because of the PURPA requirement to forecast future costs as the key feature of avoided costs. While the Commission did not adopt our position on the matter of avoided cost determination, we made substantial contributions through our arguments for longer contract durations, urging the Commission to reject the settlement proposal, demonstrating how poorly previous PURPA policies have achieved their stated goals to “encourage” renewables (the “Cinderella Report” on PURPA’s track record in California), and by enriching the record underlying the Decision.DecisionFinally, for all of the reasons set forth above, we do not adopt the Winding Creek and Green Power proposals to set avoided costs based on “computerized forecasting models.” … Consequently, we find that our adopted methodologies using actual prices accurately forecasts future prices for energy and capacity. We reject the use of administratively determined forecasts that require estimates of many unknown and unknowable variables because it could result in prices significantly higher or lower than actual avoided costs. (D.20-05-006, pg. 28). PleadingsGiven the complexity of the issues presented, the long history of contentious regulatory and legal battles, and a strong legal basis for these policy issues, GPI suggests that the Commission request legal briefing by the parties on these issues and convene a series of discussion workshops, allowing parties to present alternative pricing methodologies. It is premature for the Commission to offer a detailed staff proposal, as it has, given the complexity of the issues required to be discussed by stakeholders. With strong national implications, it is important that the Commission does this right. [GPI Comments on the OIR, 9/12/18, pgs.?56.]GPI recommends that the new SOC add an LNBA component to the base energy and capacity pricing. Additional price components should be considered, including avoided transmission costs (work that the Clean Coalition has highlighted for a number of years now at the Commission and CAISO), and greenhouse gas and environmental benefits. [GPI Comments on the OIR, 9/12/18, pg. 6.]GPI also suggests that it is time to get rid of block TOD periods, and go to hourly profiles for each month, with monthly profiles for weekdays, and for weekends/holidays, as the Staff Proposal suggests for as-available pricing. [GPI Comments on the OIR, 9/12/18, pg. 9.]There is also a good case to be made that the three-year historical average pricing proposed by the Joint IOUs is not PURPA compliant because PURPA has generally required a forecast for pricing. The “avoided cost” methodology established by PURPA and numerous FERC decisions and court orders. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 17.]Verified2. SOC Contract Duration.The GPI made substantial contributions to D.20-05-006 by arguing strongly against limiting the new standard offer QF contracts to a three-year term, as proposed in the joint IOU proposal, and in favor of allowing contracts of as long as 25 years. The Commission agreed with our opposition to the 3-year contract limit in the joint IOU and rejected it. It did not agree with our advocacy for contract terms longer than 12 years, but it did adopt our arguments in part, and where it did not adopt our position we nevertheless made a substantial contribution by enriching the record underlying the Decision.DecisionGreen Power quotes FERC’s decision in Windham Solar, LLC, 157 FERC ?61,134 (2016) (“Windham”), where FERC agreed with commenters that “’stressed the need for certainty with regard to return on investment in new technologies’” and found that “[g]iven this ‘need for certainty ...’ coupled with Congress’ directive that the Commission ‘encourage’ QFs, a legal enforceable obligation should be long enough to allow QFs reasonable opportunities to attract capital from potential investors.” [D.20-05-006, pg. 55.]This Commission cannot conclude that the Joint Parties’ proposal for a maximum 3-year term is compliant with PURPA because the record in this proceeding does not show that a 3-year contract term provides a reasonable opportunity for a project to attract financing from potential investors. [D.2005006, pg. 58.]PleadingsGPI recommends that the SOC provide the option to the developer to select a 12, 20 or 25-year term. This is the case because a 12-year term – half of the standard 25year contract term for renewables power purchase agreements in California – would represent a serious financing risk for most projects. It is also a benefit to ratepayers to lock in stable prices for a longer contract term, in what is commonly described as hedging. [GPI Comments on the OIR, 9/12/18, pg. 8.]The proposed 12-year contract term is too short to provide assurances of financeability, particularly at the very low suggested prices. GPI recommends that QFs be provided the option of 12-, 20-, or 25-year contract terms. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 3.]The Staff Proposal suggests a 12-year contract term, rather than the standard 20 or 25-year term. GPI recommends that the SOC provide the option to the developer to select a 12, 20 or 25-year term. A 12-year term – half of the standard 25-year contract term for renewables power purchase agreements in California – would represent a serious financing risk for most projects. … This concern applies even more strongly with respect to the Joint IOU proposed 3-year term. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg.?19.]However, even with these conditions GPI maintains that the three-year term of the proposed SOC is clearly not PURPA-compliant, and will only work for a handful of existing QFs that seek new short-term contracts until new longer-term contracts are available after the next PURPA reform, or through other programs. [GPI Reply on the Scoping Memo, 11/28/18, pg. 3.]GPI opposes the proposed settlement because it will only work for already existing QFs seeking new contracts, not for new projects. A 3-year contract duration with uncertain market prices will not work for new projects. [GPI Comments on Contract Term, 11/7/19, pg. 2.]The PD’s proposal for maximum 12-year terms for new QFs and 7-year terms for existing QFs falls far short of a term that would “encourage” QF development. GPI encourages the Commission to adopt a maximum contract duration of 20-years, particularly for solar projects, along with shorter durations of 10 and 15 years, to be chosen by the developer. The current 12year duration contracts have proven that a 12-year term is insufficient to make most projects under 20 MW financially feasible. [GPI Comments on the PD, 4/23/20, pg. 2.]Verified3. PURPA Compliance.The genesis of this proceeding was a court action that halted the Commission’s ReMAT program, largely on the basis of noncompliance with PURPA. One of our major concerns in our participation in this proceeding was ensuring that the outcome would be able to pass muster in the likely event of future court action. The GPI made substantial contributions to D.20-05-006 by helping to ensure that the standard offer contract resulting from this proceeding is PURPA compliant. We also made the case that adjustments to the ReMAT program in accordance with PURPA were also needed. While the Commission did not adopt all of our positions on the matter of PURPA compliance, we made a substantial contribution demonstrating that existing PURPA policies, extending back over a decade, have failed to “encourage” renewable energy because only a handful of new PURPA contracts have come online in the last decade. GPI also made a substantial contribution by enriching the record regarding PURPA compliance underlying the Decision.DecisionArguments by Winding Creek and Green Power that the Commission should revise the ReMAT program are outside of the scope of this proceeding. (Winding Creek August 31, 2018 Comments at 5; Green Power November14,2018 Comments at 2). The objective of this OIR was to provide for a New QF SOC available to all QFs that expressly contains all of the pricing provisions set forth in 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(d). The questions to be addressed were clearly set forth in both the OIR and in the Scoping Memo. (See OIR at 8-9 and Scoping Memo at 3-4.) Those questions asked what the appropriate avoided cost would be for each category of energy and capacity being provided by a QF. Revisions to ReMAT, to the extent necessary, is a subject to be addressed in other Commission proceedings. [D.2005006, pg. 31.]PleadingsGPI suggests instead that the Commission revise its Scoping Memo and change its strategy as follows: 1)?issue a modified SOC that complies with PURPA; 2)?revive ReMAT with the modifications required by the Winding Creek order; 3) commit to a new ReMAT modification proceeding or phase of the existing RPS proceeding. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 2.]GPI has proposed an alternate approach in the context of settlement talks that would accept a flawed SOC if the Commission commits to: 1) reviving ReMAT for currently queued projects only, and 2) ReMAT reform to commence in 1Q 2019. The parties are currently in dialogue about GPI’s alternate approach. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 4.]In the present case, the district court in Winding Creek ruled that the Commission had not met PURPA’s floor requirements for either the Standard Offer Contract (SOC) or ReMAT. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 6.]GPI is confident that if the Commission pursues the strategy of modifying the SOC and reviving ReMAT under current program rules on pricing, etc., that this approach will quickly be deemed by the judge to be non-compliant with PURPA. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 8.]GPI urges the Commission in this proceeding to expand the scope to include ReMAT discussion since it was a lawsuit over ReMAT that prompted the present proceeding. As just discussed, the Commission cannot revive ReMAT as-is because federal precedent requires any compelled wholesale electricity transactions to be PURPA-compliant. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 9.]GPI respectfully requests that the Commission expand the scope of this proceeding to include ReMAT matters for the following reasons: 1) the lawsuit that led to the current proceeding was aimed specifically at the ReMAT program and its perceived shortcomings; 2) the Joint Parties and GPI have implicated ReMAT with their request for ReMAT to be linked to the new SOC; 3) it is not possible to weigh in on the merits of the Staff Proposal’s new SOC or the Joint Parties’ alternate proposal without weighing the potential impact on ReMAT. [GPI Reply on the Scoping Memo, 11/28/18, pg. 1, repeated on pg. 3.]GPI strongly urges the Commission to reconsider its refusal to link SOC reform with ReMAT reform, and to explicitly tie resolution of the SOC to reform of ReMAT – not least because the ReMAT program and its failures were the legal impetus for the present proceeding. [GPI Comments on the PD, 4/23/20, pg.?5.]The Joint IOUs are concerned that the PD does not acknowledge a pending rulemaking at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (Joint IOU opening comments, p. 2). The IOUs recommend that the Commission hold the PD until FERC finishes its rulemaking. GPI strongly opposes this recommendation. There is no precedent for doing so and the problems with this approach are readily apparent in terms of holding California regulatory actions hostage to actions that might possibly be taken by FERC. [GPI Reply on the PD, 4/28/20, pg. 3.]Verified4. PURPA Mandate to Encourage QFs.One of the bulwarks of the PURPA law is a mandate to encourage the development of QFs. The recent history of QF development in California has been bleak, as we pointed out in pleadings and in our “Cinderella report,” and we are hopeful that the outcome of this proceeding will indeed be encouraging to the development of a new generation of renewable generators. The Decision acknowledges the mandate for encouraging QFs, although it disagrees with us on the details of the implementation of this mandate. Nevertheless, the GPI made substantial contributions to D.20-05-006 by arguing in favor of an appropriate interpretation of the mandate. While the Commission did not adopt our position in total, it agreed that PURPA does have a requirement to “encourage” renewables, and we made a substantial contribution by enriching the record underlying the Decision.DecisionWhile PURPA intends for states to “encourage” QF development, it also requires states to balance this goal with the need to ensure just and reasonable rates in the public interest. … PURPA was never intended to guarantee QFs a rate of return or to be a subsidy. [D.2005-006, pg. 29.]PleadingsPURPA requires contract prices that “encourage” QFs by offering avoided cost pricing but the proposed prices, in GPI’s view, achieve neither of these requirements. A better price proposal would be a forecast of energy prices that represent the avoided costs of energy that the utility would otherwise purchase. [GPI Comments on the OIR, 9/12/18, pgs.?910.]Given that all parties will agree that PURPA’s stated legislative intent is to encourage QFs, the Commission must implement avoided cost pricing that does indeed encourage these types of facilities. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 2.]PURPA requires states to “encourage” renewables by buying energy at avoided costs and with reasonable contract durations. Offering a 3-year contract duration that would simply hammer a few additional nails into the new QF coffin is the opposite of encouragement and clearly contrary to the law. [GPI Reply on Contract Duration, 11/18/19, pg. 2.] This is also a misreading of history and ignores the stated purpose of PURPA to “encourage” renewables, as mentioned above. It is important in this policy discussion to not lose sight of the fact that PURPA was passed expressly to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy for conservation and national security purposes. [GPI Reply on Contract Duration, 11/18/19, pg. 5.]Verified5. Joint IOU Proposal.The GPI made a substantial contribution to D.20-05-006 by arguing against the joint IOU proposal, which included a threeyear cap on the term for the proposed standard offer contract. The Commission adopted our position and rejected the joint IOU proposal.DecisionThis Commission cannot conclude that the Joint Parties’ proposal for a maximum 3-year term is compliant with PURPA because the record in this proceeding does not show that a 3-year contract term provides a reasonable opportunity for a project to attract financing from potential investors. [D.2005006, pg. 58.]PleadingsGPI opposes the Joint IOU Proposal for all the reasons stated herein with respect to the Staff Proposal, but with more force because the IOU proposal is far weaker than the Staff Proposal due primarily to its extremely short 3-year contract term. [GPI Comments on the Scoping Memo, 11/14/18, pg. 4.]GPI opposes the Joint Parties’ proposed settlement, described in opening comments, because: 1) the proposal is not compliant with federal law; 2) wouldn’t constitute good policy in terms of promoting renewable energy and the orphaned wholesale DER market segment; 3) would only help a handful of existing wind energy projects and a few ReMAT queue holders who think they’ll be able to obtain viably-priced contracts; 4) reflects a limited stakeholder process that began long before the OIR was opened and thus was not open to participation by all interested parties; 5) perhaps most importantly, risks exacerbating problems with implementation of PURPA by various states in light of a White House-led onslaught on federal laws and policies that promote renewable energy. [GPI Reply on the Scoping Memo, 11/28/18, pg. 2, repeated on pg. 4.]Verified6. GPI “Cinderella Report” on PURPA track record in California.The GPI drafted a detailed report on PURPA implementation in California, as well as a number of other programs designed to promote distributed renewables. The report, “A modern cinderella story: Assessing the state of California’s community-scale renewable energy market,” found that PURPA implementation in California in the previous decade had yielded only a handful of new projects. It is also found that other DER programs were similarly ineffective in their achievement of stated program goals. GPI’s purpose in drafting the report was to demonstrate these program shortcomings in order to spur development of more optimal new programs, such as the new PURPA SOC. DecisionThe Commission ultimately adopted a 12-year contract term for a new SOC and heed the lessons of the “Cinderella Report” in its related DER policy proceedings. PleadingsCalifornia, long a progressive leader on renewable energy and climate change mitigation, has neglected a key market segment for renewable energy: the “community-scale,” or “wholesale distributed generation” (DG), market. We define this market segment as projects below 20 megawatts that connect to the distribution grid and export power to the grid for sale. [GPI Comments on Contract Term, 11/7/19, Attachment 2, A Modern Cinderella Story, pg. 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?YesVerifiedb.Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? YesVerifiedc.If so, provide name of other parties: TURN, AWEA, CalWEA, SEIA, Winding Creek Solar, Clean Coalition.Verifiedd.Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: This proceeding covers a wide variety of topics related to the state’s program for contracting with renewable generators of up to 20 MW. The Green Power Institute has been an active participant in the Commission’s RPS and LTPP/IRP proceedings, and a number of related proceedings. The Green Power Institute coordinated its efforts in this proceeding with other parties in order to avoid duplication of effort, and added significantly to the outcome of the Commission’s deliberations through our own unique perspective. Some amount of duplication has occurred in this proceeding on all sides of contentious issues, but Green Power avoided duplication to the extent possible, and tried to minimize it where it was unavoidable.NotedPART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION (to be completed by Intervenor except where indicated)General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:The GPI is providing, in Attachment 2, a listing of all of the pleadings we provided in this Proceeding, R.18-07-017, that are relevant to matters covered by this Claim, and a detailed breakdown of GPI staff time spent for work performed that was directly related to our substantial contributions to Decision D.20-05-006.The hours claimed herein in support of D.20-05-006 are reasonable given the scope of the Proceeding, and the strong participation by the GPI. GPI staff maintained detailed contemporaneous time records indicating the number of hours devoted to the matters settled by this Decision in this case. In preparing Attachment 2, Dr.?Morris reviewed all of the recorded hours devoted to this proceeding, and included only those that were reasonable and contributory to the underlying tasks. As a result, the GPI submits that all of the hours included in the attachment are reasonable, and should be compensated in full.Dr. Morris is a renewable energy analyst and consultant with more than 35 years of diversified experience and accomplishments in the energy and environmental fields. He is a nationally recognized expert on biomass and renewable energy, climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions analysis, integrated resources planning, and analysis of the environmental impacts of electric power generation. Dr. Morris holds a BA in Natural Science from the University of Pennsylvania, an MSc in Biochemistry from the University of Toronto, and a PhD in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley.Dr. Morris has been actively involved in electric utility restructuring in California for more than two decades. He served as editor and facilitator for the Renewables Working Group to the California Public Utilities Commission in 1996 during the original restructuring effort, consultant to the CEC Renewables Program Committee, consultant to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research on renewable energy policy during the energy crisis years, and has provided expert testimony in a variety of regulatory and legislative proceedings, as well as in civil litigation.Mr. Hunt is a renewable energy law and policy expert with substantial experience in California, in local energy planning and in state energy-policy development. He has worked with local governments throughout Southern California, in his current role with Community Renewable Solutions LLC and in his previous role as Energy Program Director for the Community Environmental Council, a well-known nonprofit organization based in Santa Barbara. Mr. Hunt was the lead author of the Community Environmental Council's A New Energy Direction, a blueprint for Santa?Barbara County to wean itself from fossil fuels by 2030. Mr. Hunt also contributes substantially to state policy, in Sacramento at the Legislature, and in San?Francisco at the California Public Utilities Commission, in various proceedings related to renewable energy, energy efficiency, community-scale energy projects, and climate change policy. Mr. Hunt is also a Lecturer in Climate Change Law and Policy at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management (a graduate-level program) from 2007-2014. He received his law degree from the UCLA School of Law in 2001, where he was chief managing director of the Journal for International Law and Foreign Affairs. Mr. Hunt is a regular columnist at .Rebecca Davis is a partner at the law firm Lozeau Drury LLP. She has been practicing environmental and energy law for over nine years, and has been an active member of the California Bar since was admitted in December 2010. As a partner of Lozeau Drury LLP, Ms. Davis represents community groups, environmental organizations, and labor unions in litigation and administrative law proceedings throughout California often enforcing the California Environmental Quality Act, the Clean Water Act, Proposition 65, and the Administrative Procedures Act, among others. She has litigated dozens of lawsuits through trial, settlement, or other negotiated resolution.Decision D.98-04-059 states, on pgs. 33-34, “Participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. … At a minimum, when the benefits are intangible, the customer should present information sufficient to justify a Commission finding that the overall benefits of a customer’s participation will exceed a customer’s costs.” This proceeding is concerned with long-term planning for the California electricity system. It is the initial implementation of the IRP paradigm, as directed by legislation (SB 350). The cost reductions and environmental benefits of the integrated resources planning process overwhelm the cost of our participation in this proceeding.b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:The GPI made Significant Contributions to Decision D.20-05-006, by participating in workshops and working groups, and providing a series of Commission filings on the various topics that were under consideration in the Proceeding, and are covered by this Claim. Attachment 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the hours that were expended in making our Contributions. The hourly rates and costs claimed are reasonable and consistent with awards to other intervenors with comparable experience and expertise. The Commission should grant the GPI’s claim in its entirety.Notedc. Allocation of hours by issue: 1. Avoided Cost Determination 20% 2. Standard Offer Contract Duration 20% 3. PURPA Compliance 20% 4. PURPA Mandate to Encourage QFs 10% 5. Joint IOU Proposal 10% 6. GPI “Cinderella Report” on PURPA track record in California 20% NotedSpecific Claim:*ClaimedCPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRate $Total $G. Morris201822.50285D.18-05-035$6,41315.00[1]$285.00$4,275.00G. Morris20195.50325D.19-12-019$1,7885.50$325.00$1,787.50[8]G. Morris20202.00330See comment 1$6602.00$335.00[2]$670.00T. Hunt201887.25395D.18-05-035$34,46487.25$395.00$34,463.75[9]T. Hunt201951.00450D.20-02-063$22,95051.00$450.00$22,950.00T. Hunt202010.75460See comment 1$4,94510.75$460.00[3]$4,945.00R. Davis201812.90340See comment 2$4,38612.90$340.00[4]$4,386.00R. Davis20198.70350See comment 2$3,0458.70$350.00[5]$3,045.00R. Davis20202.90355See comment 1$1,0302.90$360.00[6]$1,044.00Subtotal: $79,679.00Subtotal: $77,566.25INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **ItemYearHoursRate $Basis for Rate*Total $HoursRateTotal $G. Morris202024.0165? rate for 2020$3,96024.00$167.50[7]$4,020.00Subtotal: $3,960Subtotal: $4,020.00TOTAL REQUEST: $83,639.00TOTAL AWARD: $81,586.25 **We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit their records related to the award and that 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 typically compensated at ? of preparer’s normal hourly rate ATTORNEY INFORMATIONAttorneyDate Admitted to CA BARMember NumberActions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)Tamlyn HuntNovember 2001218673NoRebecca DavisDecember 2010271662NoC. Attachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:Attachment or Comment #Description/CommentAttachment 1Certificate of ServiceAttachment 2Allocation of effort by issue, list of pleadings, breakdown of hourly effortsComment 1The Commission has not yet set a COLA for 2020. GPI is basing its rates for 2020 on an assumed COLA of 2.0 percent, which is lower than it has been for the past three years. Assuming that a COLA is set in the time between when this claim is filed and when this claim is decided, we invite the Commission to substitute the actual COLA into the ment 2Ms. Davis does not have an approved rate at the PUC, so we are seeking an initial determination on her behalf. She is a partner at the law firm Lozeau Drury. She has been practicing environmental and energy law for over nine years, and has been an active member of the California Bar since she was admitted in December 2010. As a partner of Lozeau Drury LLP, Ms. Davis represents community groups, environmental organizations, and labor unions in litigation and administrative law proceedings throughout California, often enforcing the California Environmental Quality Act, the Clean Water Act, Proposition 65, and the Administrative Procedures Act, among others. She has litigated dozens of lawsuits through trial, settlement, or other negotiated resolution.Ms. Davis has substantial experience in state energy policy development. Since November 2018, Ms. Davis has been actively representing Green Power Institute at the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) in various proceedings related to renewable energy and electric vehicles. She has drafted comments and attended working group meetings on behalf of Green Power Institute in CPUC proceedings including R.17-07-007, R.18-12.006, R.1807017, and A.18-02-016, et al., among others. In her previous role as Smart Grid Program Director and Policy Analyst for the Clean Coalition, Ms. Davis advocated for a variety of renewable energy policies including interconnection reform to decrease the time and cost of interconnection for distributed generation, expanded feed-in-tariff programs, and expanded use of smart grids. As part of her advocacy work, Ms. Davis helped draft numerous comment letters submitted to the CPUC and attended various administrative law proceedings including regulatory workshops and settlement conferences both at the CPUC and the California Energy Commission.Given that Ms. Davis has nine years of experience as an environmental and regulatory attorney, she qualifies for the 8-12 years of experience category in Res. ALJ-357, which has a 2019 rate range of $350-410. We are seeking $350 /hour as a rate for Ms. Davis for 2019, which is reasonable for an attorney with her level of experience. Please note that we are making this same rate request for Ms. Davis for 2019 in an intervenor claim in A.1802016, which was filed on 8/27/19. Based on our rate request for Ms.?Davis for 2019 we deflated it consistent with ALJ-357 to produce a rate of $340 for 2018.D. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:ItemReason[1]Math error. Actual total hours for Morris’ expert fees based on provided timesheet for 2018 is 15 hours and not 22.50.[2]Adopting $335 rate for 2020. New rate based on Morris’ 2019 rate adjusted to reflect ResolutionALJ?387 (2.55% COLA).[3]Adopting $460 rate for 2020. New rate based on Hunt’s 2019 rate adjusted to reflect Resolution-ALJ 387 (2.55% COLA).[4]Adopting $340 rate for 2018. Rate based on Resolution ALJ-352 for an attorney with 8-12 years of experience. Davis has been practicing environmental and energy law for over nine years and has been an active member of the California Bar since she was admitted in December 2010. [5]Adopting $350 rate for 2019. New rate based on Davis’ 2018 rate adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-357 (2.35% COLA).[6]Adopting $360 rate for 2020. New rate based on Davis’ 2019 rate adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-387 (2.55% COLA).[7]Adopted rate for Morris in 2020 is $335. ICOMP preparation is compensated at ? the preparer’s normal rate which in this case will be $167.50.[8]Math error. Correct total for Morris’ 2019 attorney fees is $1,787.50 and not $1,788.[9]Math error. Correct total for Hunt’s 2018 attorney fees is $34,463.75 and not $34,464.PART IV:OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTSWithin 30 days after service of this Claim, Commission Staffor 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 FACTGreen Power Institute has made a substantial contribution to D.20-05-006.The requested hourly rates for Green Power Institute’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 $81,586.25.CONCLUSION OF LAWThe Claim, with any adjustment set forth above satisfies all requirements of Pub.?Util.?Code?§§ 1801-1812.ORDERGreen Power Institute is awarded $81,586.25.Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company shall pay Green Power Institute their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional electric revenues for the 2018 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. 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 September 9, 2020 the 75th day after the filing of Green Power Institute’s 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):D2005006Proceeding(s):R1807017Author:ALJ Manisha LakhanpalPayer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison CompanyIntervenor InformationIntervenorDate Claim FiledAmount RequestedAmount AwardedMultiplier?Reason Change/DisallowanceGreen Power InstituteJune 26, 2020$83,639.00$81,586.25N/ASee CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments aboveHourly Fee InformationFirst NameLast NameAttorney, Expert, or AdvocateHourly Fee RequestedYear Hourly Fee RequestedHourly Fee AdoptedGregMorrisExpert$285.002018$285.00GregMorrisExpert$325.002019$325.00GregMorrisExpert$330.002020$335.00TamHuntAttorney$395.002018$395.00TamHuntAttorney$450.002019$450.00TamHuntAttorney$460.002020$460.00RebeccaDavisAttorney$340.002018$340.00RebeccaDavisAttorney$350.002019$350.00RebeccaDavisAttorney$355.002020$360.00END OF APPENDIX) ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download