icomp claim form - californiadocs.cpuc.ca.gov/.../published/g000/m211/k757/211757648.docx · web...

ALJ/CEK/sf3 Agenda # 16298 (REV 1) Ratesetting

March 1, 2018 Item 25

Decision

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Electric Procurement Policy Refinements Pursuant to the Joint Reliability Plan.

Rulemaking 14-02-001

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 16-01-033

Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

For contribution to Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) 14-02-001 and Decision (D.) 16-01-033

Claimed: $142,477.60 Awarded: $125,673.65 (reduced 11.8%)

Assigned Commissioner: Carla Peterman

Assigned ALJ: Colette Kersten

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. Brief description of Decision: The Commission issued OIR 14-02-001 to consider three policy proposals to refine California’s existing electric procurement reliability framework that were set forth in a Joint Reliability Plan (JRP) negotiated by the staffs of the CPUC and the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and adopted by the Commission and the CAISO Board of Governors.

In D.16-01-033, the Commission closed the docket after finding that: (1) the Track 1 issue of a two and/or three-year forward-looking resource adequacy (RA) requirement should be deferred pending the development of a durable flexible capacity (FC) requirement in the RA proceeding; (2) the Track 3 issue of developing a market-based backstop procurement mechanism to succeed the expiring Capacity Procurement Mechanism had been satisfactorily resolved by a settlement with the CAISO that had been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and (3) the Track 2 goal of implementing a long-term joint reliability

211757648 1

R.14-02-001 CEK/sf3 PROPOSED DECISION (REV. 1)

planning assessment with the CAISO and California Energy Commission (CEC) to better inform procurement policy discussions would not be achieved before the scheduled end of this docket but that, in the meantime, Energy Division should gather and disseminate information regarding expected electric resource availability and the forward contracting of such resources.

B. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:

Intervenor CPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)):

1. Date of Prehearing Conference (PHC): April 17, 2014 Verified

2. Other specified date for NOI:

3. Date NOI filed: March 24, 2014 Verified

4. Was the NOI timely filed? YesShowing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)):

5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: A.12-11-009/I.13-03-007 (PG&E 2014 GRC) – and showing in NOI in this case

Verified

6. Date of ALJ ruling: 9/6/13 Verified

7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):

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: A. 12-11-009/I.13-03-007 (PG&E 2014 GRC), as cited in NOI here

Verified

10. Date of ALJ ruling: 9/6/13 Verified

11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):

12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? YesTimely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):

2


13. Identify Final Decision: D.16-01-033 Verified

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 1/29/16 Verified

15. File date of compensation request: 3/28/16 Verified

16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes

C. Additional Comments on Part I:

# Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion

4, 8 TURN did not receive an affirmative ruling on its Notice of Intent in this proceeding, consistent with the explanation in the Commission’s Intervenor Compensation guide (p. 12) that such rulings may not issue absent a request for a finding of “significant financial hardship,” a deficiency in the NOI, or when the ALJ desires to provide guidance.

Verified. TURN is eligible for compensation in this proceeding.

PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION

A. Did 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

Background and Overview: As the OIR (p. 3) notes, this proceeding is based on a Joint Reliability Plan (JRP) that evolved out of discussions that began with a February 26, 2013 Long-Term Resource Adequacy Summit (February 2013 Summit) jointly hosted by the CPUC and the CAISO.

At that February 2013 Summit, the CAISO presentation claimed that California’s current RA regime was inadequate, that there was an obvious “intermediate-term procurement gap” between the CPUC’s one-year RA

OIR 14-02-001, pp. 2-4, and Appendix A to the OIR, the Joint Reliability Plan (JRP)

Verified

3


program and its 10-year long term procurement proceeding, and that a CAISO-managed forward capacity market was necessary to address these problems. (Attachment 4 - See Note 1)

TURN strongly disagreed with a key factual premise of the CAISO’s position – that there was a significant intermediate term procurement gap – and TURN devoted significant time and resources to developing and presenting the facts to rebut the CAISO’s claim. TURN presented the results of its analysis in documents shared with CPUC staff and Commissioner offices. TURN also was deeply concerned about the CAISO’s proposal for a broad forward capacity market similar to the centralized capacity market that the CPUC had rejected in D.10-06-018. TURN’s concerns included a potential ceding of jurisdiction and control over California’s environmentally-focused procurement policies to FERC.

Following the February 2013 Summit, extensive discussions took place between the CPUC (primarily Energy Division/Legal Division) and CAISO staffs, and also involving other stakeholders, including TURN. The first formal, public document to emerge out of those discussions was a “Joint Reliability Framework” issued by the CPUC and CAISO staffs on July 10, 2013 (Attachment 5), which was the subject of workshops and written stakeholder comments submitted to the CPUC and CAISO staffs. That document was significantly revised and reissued as the JRP, which is attached to the OIR

4


as Appendix A.

As will be detailed below, throughout the period between the February 2013 Summit and the issuance of the OIR, TURN advocated the positions summarized above with the CPUC staffs and with Commission offices and influenced the scope and nature of the three issues that were ultimately set forth in the JRP. As a general matter, TURN’s advocacy contributed to a framing of the issues by the Commission that was much narrower and more information and fact-based than the proposal initially championed by the CAISO.

These contributions to the scope and specification of the issues set forth in the OIR constitute substantial contributions to the OIR, as discussed in more detail below. Under Commission Rule 17.4(d), intervenors may seek recovery of reasonable costs incurred prior to the start of a proceeding. (See Note 2)

After the issuance of the OIR, TURN made additional substantial contributions, discussed below, for which TURN also seeks compensation.

Substantial Contributions to the OIR

1. Debunking CAISO Claim of an Intermediate-Term Procurement Gap: Through careful gathering and analysis of procurement data that had not previously been assembled (including confidential data that may not have been previously reviewed by the CAISO), TURN demonstrated that the IOUs currently engage in substantial mid-term procurement through bundled procurement

CAISO Claim: CPUC’s procurement policies only provide for one-year RA and 10-year long-term procurement (LTPP) plans, without any mechanisms to support mid-term procurement in the 3-5 year period. CAISO Paper for February 2013 Summit (Attachment 4), pp. 2-3.

TURN Response:1. Public Comment remarks of

Verified.

However, we do not compensate the TURN for their participation in the 2013 FERC Technical Conference as attendance by CPUC staff and a commissioner does not constitute as a substantial

5


planning and other CPUC-directed efforts. TURN’s analysis is reflected in the JRP on which the OIR is based.

Kevin Woodruff at Feb. 2013 Summit (Attachment 6)2. TURN 3/5/13 slides (prepared by K. Woodruff) shared with CPUC staff and commissioner offices showing the full range of CPUC mid-term procurement mechanisms, including IOU bundled procurement plans. (Attachment 7)3. TURN 4/26/13 presentation for CPUC staff and commissioner offices with graphs showing significant levels of RA procurement by IOUs, including flexible capacity, for period three to five years forward. (Attachment 8).4. TURN presentation at 7/31/13 FERC Technical Conference attended by CPUC staff and a commissioner showing significant levels of mid-term forward procurement by IOUs. (Attachment 9) (Note 3)

OIR 14-02-001:1. JRP (App. A to OIR), p. 2, noting that CPUC approves IOU bundled procurement plans covering period between one-year RA and LTPP.2. JRP, p. 6, noting that LSEs engage in forward procurement beyond RA compliance year in order to satisfy RA requirements in future years.

contribution.

2.Need for better information regarding available and already procured resources for mid- to long-term period: In order to guide policy and avoid mistaken views about the level and nature of mid-term procurement, TURN advocated that the Commission regularly

TURN Advocacy:

1. Public Comment remarks of Kevin Woodruff at Feb. 2013 Summit (Attachment 6), calling for a periodic inventory of forward procurement by LSEs.

2. TURN 7/25/13 comments to

Verified

6


compile such information. Consistent with TURN’s advocacy, the JRP includes an element for the CPUC and CAISO to jointly develop and publish an annual or biennial long-term reliability planning assessment covering the 4-10 year planning horizon. This element of the JRP was the basis of Track 2 of this proceeding.

CPUC and CAISO regarding JRF (Attachment 10), p. 2, endorsing need for a joint reliability assessment to provide accurate information about how well forward procurement needs are being met.

3. TURN 9/6/13 presentation (Attachment 11) for CPUC commissioner offices supporting need for more and better information regarding forward procurement.

OIR 14-02-001:

1. JRP, p. 6, noting that information about resources under contract for future years is not publicly available.

2. JRP, pp. 7-8, adopting as “Initiative 2” the development and publishing of a joint long-term reliability planning assessment.

3. OIR, pp. 11-12, assigning Track 2 of this docket to the development of a unified long-term reliability planning assessment.

3.Declining to revisit a centralized capacity market: Consistent with TURN’s advocacy, the Commission: (1) declined to pursue the CAISO staff’s desire to institute a forward capacity market in California and (2) agreed to consider the CAISO’s proposed Reliability Services Auction as just one option for replacing the expiring backstop Capacity Procurement Mechanism (CPM); and (3) identified legal issues regarding federal preemption as significant

TURN Advocacy:

1. TURN 7/25/13 comments to CPUC and CAISO regarding JRF (Attachment 10), pp. 2-3, expressing concerns that CAISO’s proposed centralized auction could lead to a loss of state authority over California’s resource mix and the cost of its energy supply.

2. TURN 9/6/13 presentation (Attachment 11) for CPUC commissioner offices expressing

Verified

7


concerns that needed to be addressed with respect to any replacement for the CPM.

FERC preemption and cost concerns regarding CAISO’s capacity auction proposal.

OIR 14-02-001:

1. OIR, pp. 4-5, declining to consider a centralized capacity auction for California based on concerns about providing a stable regulatory environment to achieve state environmental and procurement goals at reasonable cost.

2. JRP, p, 8, which, in a change from the 7/25/13 JRF, proffered the CAISO’s proposed Reliability Services Auction as one of a range of potential options to replace the CPM. The JRF, p. 2, had presented the RSA as the sole option to replace the CPM and to serve a potentially broader role in forward procurement.

3. OIR, pp. 12-15, scoping legal issues related to FERC preemption as important issues that need to be addressed with respect to any replacement of the CPM.

Substantial Contributions to D.16-01-033

4. Deferral of Track 1 Issues: Consistent with TURN’s advocacy that the Track 1 issue – whether to adopt a two or three-year forward RA procurement requirement – did not require immediate attention and could be deferred, the Commission decided to suspend Track 1 pending Commission development of a durable FC requirement in the RA docket.

TURN Advocacy: In the 5/2/14 Track 1 workshop, TURN made the case that there was no urgent need for a multi-year RA requirement. (Woodruff Workshop presentation, Attachment 12, slide 7). In addition, TURN argued that: (1) before addressing this issue, the Commission should await updated data from the Track 2

Verified

8


reliability planning assessment and (2) if multi-year RA were adopted for any element of RA, it should be for FC, and that it would be appropriate to await any forthcoming changes in the definition of FC (2/20/14 Opening Comments on OIR, pp. 2-3; 10/30/14 Track 1 Opening Comments, pp. 6-7; Track 1 Reply Comments, pp. 2-4).

D.16-01-033: p. 6, confirming the suspension of work on Track 1 pending the resolution of the durable FC requirements in the RA docket.

5. ED to continue collecting and publicizing procurement data even though Track 2 work is deferred: As requested by TURN, notwithstanding the delay and deferral of Track 2 work, the Commission affirmed that Energy Division shall continue to gather and disseminate information regarding expected electric resource availability and the forward contracting of such resources, and make such information available to the public for the benefit of policy makers and market participants.

TURN Advocacy: TURN 1/11/16 Comments on Proposed Decision, pp. 1-2.

D.16-01-033, p. 7.

Verified

6. Changes to the Proposed Decision: As requested by TURN, D.16-01-033 clarifies that, should Track 1 or 2 issues be taken up in another proceeding, the record of this proceeding on those issues will be incorporated into that other proceeding and that intervenors will have the opportunity to seek compensation for their work here in such other docket.

TURN Advocacy, TURN 1/11/16 Comments on Proposed Decision, pp. 2-4.

D.16-01-033, p. 7.

Verified

9


B. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5):

Intervenor’s Assertion

CPUC Discussion

a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding?1

Yes Yes

b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours?

Yes, on certain issues.

Verified

c. If so, provide name of other parties:

With respect to the substantial contributions to the OIR listed above, TURN believes that TURN and ORA were the primary parties supporting those positions. With respect to Track 1, although analyses varied, several other parties may have had a position similar to TURN’s, including ORA, CLECA, SCE, and AReM. With respect to Track 2, only TURN pursued the issue for which TURN claims a substantial contribution.

Verified

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication:TURN and ORA represented similar interests in this proceeding. (While both represented ratepayer interests, TURN alone focuses its representation on the interests of residential and small commercial customers.) TURN accordingly took steps to coordinate with ORA, as appropriate. With respect to the pre-OIR substantial contributions claimed above, TURN took the lead on on the first (debunking mid-term procurement gap) and second (need for better information) issues. In particular, TURN’s expert, Kevin Woodruff, took the initiative to gather, analyze, and present the data regarding mid-term procurement that had been missing from the discussions up to that point regarding the claimed needed for a CCM. With respect to the third pre-OIR substantial contribution claimed above, TURN and ORA closely coordinated efforts with respect to the jurisdictional concerns raised by a CCM. In particular, ORA prepared a comprehensive legal analysis of the jurisdictional issues to which TURN contributed but did not duplicate, and which TURN utilized in its advocacy with CPUC staff and commissioners.

With respect to Track 1, many parties supported the deferral of those issues until the development of a durable flexible capacity definition in the RA docket. However, TURN’s positions were based on the independent analysis of its expert, Kevin Woodruff, and complementary to the offerings of others, particularly in TURN’s emphasis on the value of obtaining data through the Track 2 process before making a final decision. TURN’s independent perspective contributed to a full record upon which the Commission could base its determination. The fact that other parties shared TURN’s perspective did not result in TURN’s undue duplication with those parties. A rulemaking proceeding of this nature attracts a range of parties, and some degree of overlap in positions is inevitable.

With respect to Track 2, prior to the OIR, through its expert, Mr. Woodruff, TURN

Agreed, TURN did not engage in duplicative efforts.

1 The Division of Ratepayer Advocates was renamed the Office of Ratepayer Advocates effective September 26, 2013, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 96 (Budget Act of 2013: public resources), which was approved by the Governor on September 26, 2013.

10


was the champion for this issue and continued as a leader on this issue in the proceeding. As noted, TURN was the sole party to pursue Commission confirmation in the final decision that Track 2-type information gathering and dissemination would continue notwithstanding the closure of this docket.

For all of these reasons, TURN submits that the Commission should find no undue duplication between TURN’s participation and that of ORA or other parties.

C. Additional Comments on Part II:

# Intervenor’s Comment CPUC Discussion

Note 1 All pre-OIR documents cited in support of TURN’s substantial contributions are attached to this claim for compensation.

Verified.

Note 2 As the discussion in the text shows, in this case, much advocacy took place before the issuance of the OIR to shape the JRP, which in turn shaped which issues would be addressed in the OIR and the scope of those issues. Under the intervenor compensation program, TURN’s pre-OIR advocacy is compensable for two reasons.

First, TURN’s pre-OIR advocacy satisfies the definition of “substantial contribution” in Public Utilities (PU) Code Section 1801(i) in that it substantially assisted the Commission in the “making of its order or decision.” Here, the “order or decision” is the OIR itself, which TURN’s advocacy substantially assisted the Commission in developing.

Second, CPUC Rule of Practice and Procedure 17.4(d) provides that a “request for compensation may include reasonable costs of participation in the proceeding that were incurred prior to the start of the proceeding.” As demonstrated in this claim for compensation, all of the pre-OIR hours claimed in this

We agree that TURN’s pre-OIR advocacy is compensable, with the applicable reductions made in this decision.

11


request were reasonable and related to TURN’s substantial contributions to the proceeding.

Accordingly, TURN’s pre-OIR hours should be compensated in full.

Note 3 As discussed further in Part III, TURN’s participation in the July 31, 2015 FERC Technical Conference was for the purpose of influencing the JRP that was at that time being negotiated between the CPUC and CAISO staffs. As noted, that conference was attended by several members of the CPUC staff as well as at least one CPUC commissioner.

The FERC Technical Conference occurred on July 31, 2013.

We do not compensate the TURN for their participation in the 2013 FERC Technical Conference as attendance by CPUC staff and a commissioner does not constitute as a substantial contribution.

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

A. General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):

a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: TURN’s advocacy reflected in the OIR and D.16-01-033 addressed policy matters rather than specific rates or disputes over particular dollar amounts. As a result, TURN cannot easily identify precise monetary benefits to ratepayers from our work related to these decisions, given the nature of the issues presented. While it is difficult to place a dollar value on Resource Adequacy (RA) and procurement issues, TURN submits that our participation should result in reduced customer costs by promoting procurement consistent with California’s environmental and reliability goals at reasonable cost. In this case as in prior proceedings of a similar nature, these benefits far exceed the modest cost of TURN’s participation. (See, e.g., D.12-06-014, issued in, R.09-10-032, as well as D.09-11-029, issued in R.08-01-025, and D.07-03-011, issued in R.05-12-013 (two earlier RA proceedings), which found that the benefits from TURN’s participation on RA policy issues outweighed the costs of TURN’s participation.)

For all of these reasons, the Commission should find that TURN's efforts here have been productive.

CPUC Discussion

We agree that TURN’s hours and costs are reasonable and that its efforts resulted in benefits to customers, although difficult to quantify, that will outweigh the cost of TURN’s participation.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

This compensation request includes 417 total substantive hours for TURN’s

With reductions made in this

12


attorneys and expert, Kevin Woodruff, 294 (70%) of which reflect Mr. Woodruff’s work. The 430.75 total hours break down as 268.25 hours incurred prior to the issuance of the OIR (185.25 for Mr. Woodruff and the remainder for TURN’s attorneys) and 148.75 hours after the OIR (108.75 for Mr. Woodruff and the remainder for TURN’s attorneys). We will address the reasonableness of the pre- and post-OIR hours in turn.

TURN submits that the pre-OIR hours were reasonable and necessary in light of the strong desire of the CAISO early in 2013 to establish a FERC-jurisdictional, CAISO-controlled CCM. TURN resisted positions pushed forcefully by the highest levels of CAISO staff and which were supported by fossil plant generators and at least some IOUs. Much of TURN’s advocacy consisted of debunking CAISO factual claims, which required painstaking research by Mr. Woodruff into previously uncompiled mid-term procurement data. Mr. Woodruff then carefully analyzed that data and and developed charts and graphs to present the complex results. Complicating the research and presentation was the fact that much of the data Mr. Woodruff compiled was confidential and subject to nondisclosure agreements. Having performed this research and analysis, TURN then disseminated its findings in many meetings and forums with CPUC staff and commissioner offices, as well as the CAISO and other interested parties. Throughout this effort, TURN was repeatedly told by CPUC staff and commissioner offices that this work was important and would support the development of a JRP that was grounded in fact, not supposition. In addition, TURN devoted some of its pre-OIR time to assessing the impacts of a CCM on California’s jurisdiction over renewable and other procurement policies and presenting TURN’s concerns to CPUC staff and commissioner offices. These preemption issues were complex and time-consuming in that they required review and analysis of FERC and court decisions in a developing area in which there was much legal and policy uncertainty. TURN submits that all of the pre-OIR time claimed in this request was necessary for TURN’s advocacy and integral to TURN’s substantial contributions to the OIR and the JRP on which it was based.

With respect to the post-OIR hours, TURN submits that its hours were reasonable. TURN’s participation in Track 1 (85.50 hours) consisted of active participation in two workshops, review and analysis of a Staff proposal, and multiple rounds of informal and formal comments, all of which supported TURN’s substantial contribution on Track 1. The relatively few hours TURN devoted to Track 2 (16.50) also directly supported TURN’s substantial contribution on those issues. TURN is not seeking compensation for – and has excluded from its timesheets -- over 120 hours it devoted to Track 3 issues in the expectation that, as contemplated in the OIR, the CAISO-approved replacement for the CPM would come before the Commission for its review and assessment in this proceeding. That expectation did not come to fruition, in light of the settlement before FERC and the closure of Track 3.

In its work before and after the issuance of the OIR, TURN was highly efficient. For its substantial contributions before and after the issuance of the OIR, TURN relied heavily upon its outside expert, Mr. Woodruff of Woodruff Expert Services, the same expert TURN has extensively relied upon in previous proceedings related to resource adequacy and procurement issues. TURN’s

decision, the claim is reasonable.

13


reliance on Mr. Woodruff’s extensive expertise significantly reduced TURN’s attorney hours and thereby resulted in efficiencies in TURN’s participation in this proceeding. As reflected in the attached timesheets, Thomas Long was TURN’s primary attorney for this proceeding. He was assisted in 2013 by TURN attorney Matthew Freedman (9.75 hours) with respect to developing TURN’s strategy to oppose the CAISO’s efforts to implement a CCM. Mr. Freedman had considerable experience on procurement matters and his background and expertise was essential to developing TURN’s successful strategy, particularly with respect to the jurisdictional issues. In April 2014, TURN attorney Marcel Hawiger (5.0 hours) attended a prehearing conference when Mr. Long and Mr. Freedman were unavailable.

Consistent with D.15-05-026, TURN is not claiming for advocacy before CAISO or FERC in this request. In fact, as noted above, TURN has excluded over 120 hours it incurred participating in a CAISO-organized effort to develop a replacement for the CPM related to Track 3 issues. TURN includes relatively few hours in July 2013 discussing with CAISO staff TURN’s concerns about CAISO’s CCM proposal and the underlying assumptions. Those hours were for the purposes of influencing the JRP that formed the basis of the OIR and should be fully compensated. TURN also notes that TURN submitted its 7/25/13 comments on the JRF (Attachment 10) through the CAISO’s web portal, but that portal was for the purpose of presenting comments to the staffs of both the CPUC and the CAISO. As noted above, TURN has included time for preparing Mr. Woodruff’s presentation (Attachment 9) to and attendance at a July 2013 Technical Conference because that Conference was a forum to influence the JRP and integral to our substantial contributions to the OIR. The Technical Conference took place shortly after the draft JRF had been issued and was well-attended by CPUC staff and also by at least one CPUC commissioner. Those efforts should be viewed as an important part of TURN’s advocacy regarding the JRP. In contrast and consistent with D.15-05-026, TURN has excluded from this request 16.5 hours of Mr. Woodruff’s time and 2.25 hours of Mr. Long’s time devoted to preparing pleadings and letters for the purpose of advocating TURN’s positions to FERC. These exclusions are in addition to the over 120 hours of time spent on Track 3-related issues that TURN has excluded.

TURN’s request also includes 13.0 hours devoted to the preparation of this request for compensation by Mr. Long. This is a reasonable figure consistent with the scale of the proceeding both before and after the issuance of the OIR and TURN’s level of involvement. Mr. Long has prepared this request because of his involvement in all stages of TURN’s work related to this proceeding and his detailed knowledge of TURN’s work effort.

TURN submits that all of the hours claimed in this request were reasonably necessary to the achievement of TURN’s substantial contributions and that no unnecessary duplication is reflected in the attached timesheets.

c. Allocation of hours by issue:

TURN has allocated its daily time entries by activity codes to better reflect the nature of the work reflected in each entry. TURN has used the following activity

Verified.

14


codes for its substantive (non-compensation-related) work:

Code Description % of SubstantiveHours

CCM Pre-OIR hours related to the intertwined issues (see discussion below) concerning the CAISO’s centralized capacity market (CCM) proposal

64%

Track 1 (also coded as MY-RA)

Work specifically related to the Track 1 issues concerning whether to adopt a multi-year RA requirement

21%

Track 2 Work specifically related to the Track 2 issue of developing a long-term reliability planning assessment

4%

PD Work specifically related to seeking changes to the PD to clarify that the record of Tracks 1 and 2 will be incorporated into any successor proceeding

2%

GP Work related to general participation in this proceeding, such as reviewing the scoping memo and other rulings, review of workshop notices, and other procedural matters

3%

# Time entries that cover substantive issue work that cannot easily be identified with a specific activity code, such as comments on several issues in a short pleading

4%

Coord Work related to coordinating with ORA to avoid unnecessary duplication

1%

The pre-OIR (CCM) hours addressed intertwined and interrelated issues, as reflected in TURN’s explanation of its substantial contribution to the OIR: (1) debunking the claim of an intermediate-term procurement gap; (2) need for better information about available and procured resources; and (3) opposing the creation of a centralized capacity market controlled by CAISO and FERC. Issues (1) and (2) are clearly interrelated, and issues (1) and (2) were integral to showing there was no demonstrated need for a centralized capacity market. Because of the interrelated and intertwined nature of these issues, these pre-OIR hours are all given the code “CCM”. TURN requests compensation for all of the time included in this request for compensation under this code, and therefore does not believe allocation of the time associated with these entries is necessary. However, if such allocation needs to occur, TURN proposes that the Commission allocate these

15


entries as follows, based on the following estimated percentages derived from the time TURN devoted to these issues:

1) Intermediate term procurement gap – 60%2) Need for better information – 15%3) Centralized Capacity Market – 25%

TURN submits that under the circumstances this information should suffice to address the allocation requirement under the Commission’s rules. Should the Commission wish to see additional or different information on this point, TURN requests that the Commission so inform TURN and provide a reasonable opportunity for TURN to supplement this showing accordingly.

B. Specific Claim:*

CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEESItem Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $

Thomas Long 2013 77.25 $555 D.14-05-015, p. 28

$42,873.75 71.00 $555 $39,405.00

T. Long 2014 23.25 $570 D.15-06-021, p. 28

$13,252.50 23.00 $570 $13,110.00

T. Long 2015 1.25 $570 Res. ALJ-308 $712.50 1.25 $570 $712.50

T. Long 2016 6.50 $570 Comment #1 $3,705.00 6.50 $5752 $3,737.50

Matthew Freedman

2013 9.75 $400 D.14-11-019, p. 7 $3,900.00 2.00 $400 $800.00

Marcel Hawiger

2014 5.00 $410 D.15-06-021, p. 28

$2,050.00 4.75 $410 $1,947.50

Kevin Woodruff (expert)

2013 185.25 $240 D.12-11-050, p. 17

$44,460.00 143.50 $240 $34,440.00

K. Woodruff 2014 90.00 $250 D.15-05-026, p. 10

$22,500.00 90.00 $250 $22,500.00

K. Woodruff 2015 16.00 $250 Same as 2014 $4,000.00 16.00 $250 $4,000.00

K. Woodruff 2016 2.75 $250 Same as 2015 $687.50 2.75 $250 $687.50

Subtotal: $ 138,141.25 Subtotal: $ 121,340.00

INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate Total $

2 See D.16-11-004.

16


T. Long 2014 0.75 $285 ½ of 2014 rate $213.75 0.75 $285 $213.75

T. Long 2016 13.0 $285 ½ of 2016 approved rate (see comment #1)

$3,705.00 13.0 $287.50 $3,737.50

Subtotal: $ 3,918.75 Subtotal: $ 3,951.25

COSTS# Item Detail Amount Amount

Phone Telephone expense related to R.14-02-001 $8.68 $8.68

Photocopying Expenses associated with copying pleadings and other documents related to R.14-02-001

$198.60 $161.60

Postage Expenses associated with mailing pleadings related to R.14-02-001

$212.12 $212.12

Subtotal: $ 419.40 Subtotal: $ 382.40

TOTAL REQUEST: $142,477.60 TOTAL AWARD: $ 125,673.65

142 **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 ½ of preparer’s normal hourly rate

ATTORNEY INFORMATIONAttorney Date Admitted to CA

BAR3Member Number Actions Affecting

Eligibility (Yes/No?)If “Yes”, attach

explanationThomas Long 12/86 124776 No

Matthew Freedman 3/01 214812 No

Marcel Hawiger 1/98 194244 No

C. Attachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:

Attachment or Comment #

Description/Comment

Comment #1 At the time of preparing this request, the Commission had not determined the amount by which intervenor hourly rates will be raised for 2016. Accordingly, for 2016, TURN’s request uses the 2014 and 2015 approved hourly rate for Mr. Long. TURN respectfully requests that the Commission adjust Mr. Long’s hourly rate by the amount of any general increase it may determine is appropriate for 2016 hourly rates.

3 This information may be obtained through the State Bar of California’s website at http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch .

17

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch


D. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:

Item Reason

1 We do not compensate TURN for their participation in the 2013 FERC Technical Conference as attendance by CPUC staff and a commissioner does not constitute as a substantial contribution to the proceeding. Therefore, the Commission reduces Woodruff’s 2013 claim by 41.75 hours and Long’s 2013 claim by 6.25 hours.

2 On February 26, 2013, Woodruff, Freedman, and Long all attended the CAISO-CPUC RA Capacity Summit. We find this time to be duplicative and inefficient. Given that Woodruff and Long devoted the most hours to the proceeding, we therefore allow Woodruff’s and Long’s hours and disallow Freedman’s 7 hours.

3 On July 31, 2013, Freedman and Long both claim 0.75 hours for a meeting with each other to discuss concerns and issues regarding the joint staff proposal. 0.75 hours have been disallowed from Freedman’s 2013 claim for internal duplication of efforts.

4 Hawiger and Long both claim time for meeting with each other to discuss PHC preparation meeting on April 10, 2014. Hawiger claims 0.25 hours, while Long claims 0.50 hours. As such, the following hours have been removed from TURN’s award for internal duplication of efforts: 0.25 from Hawiger’s 2014 claim and 0.25 from Long’s 2014 claim.

5 Documentation of expenses provided notates $196.80 not $198.60 in photocopying expenses. We ask that in future claims TURN presents their copying costs as accurate and detailed as possible. TURN Office Copies and Scans are considered administrative costs and therefore we reduce this claim by $35.20.

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? No.

B. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?

Yes.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. TURN has made a substantial contribution to D.16-01-033.

2. The requested hourly rates for TURN’s representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

18


3. The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed.

4. The total of reasonable compensation is $125,673.65.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.

ORDER

1. The Utility Reform Network shall be awarded $125,673.65.

2. 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 The Utility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional electric revenues for the 2016 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 June 11, 2016, the 75th day after the filing of The Utility Reform Network’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.

3. The comment period for today’s decision is waived.

This decision is effective today.

Dated _____________, at Lyndwood, California.

19

R.14-02-001 CEK/sf3

APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision: Modifies Decision?Contribution Decision: D1601033Proceeding: R1402001Author: ALJ KerstenPayers: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company,

and Southern California Edison Company

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Claim Date

Amount Requested

Amount Awarded

Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance

The Utility Reform Network

3/28/16 $142,477.60 $125,673.65 N/A Adjustment to Long’s 2016 Hourly Rate; Non-substantive

contribution; Internal Duplication;

Administrative Costs

Advocate Information

First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested

Year Hourly Fee Requested

Hourly Fee Adopted

Thomas Long Attorney TURN $555 2013 $555Thomas Long Attorney TURN $570 2014 $570Thomas Long Attorney TURN $570 2015 $570Thomas Long Attorney TURN $570 2016 $575Matthew Freedman Attorney TURN $400 2013 $400Marcel Hawiger Attorney TURN $410 2014 $410Kevin Woodruff Expert TURN $240 2013 $240Kevin Woodruff Expert TURN $250 2014 $250Kevin Woodruff Expert TURN $250 2015 $250Kevin Woodruff Expert TURN $250 2016 $250

(END OF APPENDIX)

icomp claim form - californiadocs.cpuc.ca.gov/.../published/g000/m211/k757/211757648.docx · web...

Documents