ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID#16444 ......R.15-05-006 ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs PROPOSED DECISION (REV. 1) the need for new fire-safety regulations, including potential regulations

ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID#16444(REV 1)

5/10/18 Item 29

Decision _________________

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Developand Adopt Fire-Threat Maps and Fire-SafetyRegulations.

Rulemaking 15-05-006

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORMNETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 17-01-009

AND DECISION 17-12-024

Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network(TURN)

For contribution to Decisions (D.) 17-01-009and D.17-12-024

Claimed: $50,386.92 Awarded: $40,216.33

Assigned Commissioner:Michael Picker

Assigned ALJs: Timothy Kenneyand Valerie Kao

212827010214001095 1

R.15-05-006 ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs PROPOSED DECISION (REV. 1)

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES:

A. Brief description of Decision: In Decision (D.) 17-01-009, the Commissionadopted a work plan for the development andadoption of a statewide fire-threat map known asFire Map 2. The adopted Fire Map 2 work planwas generally based on the proposal contained in aWorkshop Report developed by the parties,although with some modifications. The decisionalso established a schedule to adopt new fire-safetyregulations for the High Fire-Threat District byDecember 2017.

In D.17-12-024, the Commission adopted newregulations to enhance the fire safety of overheadelectric power lines and communication lineslocated in high fire-threat areas. The proceedinghad included a process for parties to identify,evaluate, and submit proposed fire-safetyregulations for the High Fire-Threat District,through a process that relied largely on a workshopprocess led by an ad hoc group known as the FireSafety Technical Panel. The resulting WorkshopReport served as the starting point for theCommission’s analysis of the 31 proposedregulations contained therein.

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

Intervenor CPUC Verified

Timely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)):

1. Date of Prehearing Conference: 6/22/16 06/22/2016

2. Other specified date for NOI:

3. Date NOI filed: 7/22/16 07/22/2016

4. Was the NOI timely filed?

Showing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b) or eligible local government entity status(§§ 1802(d), 1802.4):

5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceedingnumber:

A.15-03-005 A.15-03-005

6. Date of ALJ ruling: 8/6/15 08/06/2015

7. Based on another CPUC determination N/A

2


(specify):

8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligiblegovernment entity status?

Yes

Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b))

9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceedingnumber:

A.15-03-005 A.15-03-005

10. Date of ALJ ruling: 8/6/15 08/06/2015

11. Based on another CPUC determination(specify):

N/A

12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Yes

Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):

13. Identify Final Decision: D.17-12-024 D.17-12-024

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 12/21/17 12/21/2017

15. File date of compensation request: 2/16/18 02/16/2018

16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes

PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION:

Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j),A.§ 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059).

Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) SpecificReferences toIntervenor’s

ClaimedContribution(s)

CPUC Discussion

1. Workshops and the Workshop Reportfor D.17-01-009: In the Order InstitutingRulemaking that initiated thisproceeding, the Commission described aprocess for preparing a work plan for thedesign, development, adoption andimplementation of Fire Map 2 as soon aspracticable after submission of Fire Map1. In D.16-05-036, the Commissionadopted Fire Map 1, and directed partiesto immediately commence thepreparation of a work plan for thedevelopment of Fire Map 2. To that end,the decision directed parties to continuequarterly meetings in order to consider

OIR 15-05-006,pp. 12-13.

Claim is verified regarding (1)the summary of the citedCommission Decisions,Scoping Memo, andWorkshop Report, and (2)TURN was a signatory to theWorkshop Report filed onOctober 7, 2016 that is thesubject of D.17-01-009.However, none of the citeddocuments show or mentionany substantial contributionby TURN.

Claim does not identify any

3


the need for new fire-safety regulations,including potential regulations for thenew High Fire-Threat District. TheScoping Memo issued on July 15, 2016,directed the Fire Safety Technical Panelto convene workshops to prepare adetailed work plan for the development,adoption and implementation of FireMap 2. These workshops were held inAugust and September, 2016, andresulted in a Workshop Report submittedon October 7, 2016. In D.17-01-009, theCommission found the WorkshopReport’s plan for developing Fire Map 2generally reasonable and adopted it, withsome modifications intended tostreamline the development of Fire Map2.

Due to resource constraints, TURN’sparticipation through issuance ofD.16-05-036 was limited to monitoringthe rulemaking. With the notice of theprehearing conference, TURN took amore active role. TURN participated inthe workshops in August and September2016, and was one of the parties thatsponsored the Workshop Reportaddressed in D.17-01-009.

Scoping Memo,pp. 6-8.

D.17-01-009, pp.8-9, FOF 1, COL1.

Workshop Reportsubmitted10/17/16.

substantial contributions otherthan TURN’s co-sponsorshipof the Workshop Report.TURN’s substantialcontributions to the citedWorkshop Report andD.17-01-009 was, at best,minor. Cites to R.15-05-006,pp. 12-13; Scoping Memo,pp. 6-8; D.17-01-009, pp. 8-9,FOF 1, COL 1; and WorkshopReport submitted 10/17/2016do not show any substantialcontribution by TURN.

The 10/7/16 WorkshopReport does not reflect that TURN attended/participated in the workshop onincludes a list of participants for each workshop date. The list of workshop participants does not include TURN for thefollowing dates: 8/1/16,8/11/16, 8/18-8/19/16,8/29-8/30/16, 9/8-9/9/16,9/21-9/22/16.

TURN did not file commentsor reply comments on theWorkshop Report addressedin D.17-01-009. TURN didnot file comments or replycomments on the proposeddecision. TURN does notidentify any unique orsubstantial contributions tothe Workshop Report or toD.17-01-009.

Verified = TURN attended /participated in the workshopon 9/7/16. TURN was asignatory to the WorkshopReport.

2. Workshops and Workshop Report forD.17-12-024: In the Order Instituting

Claim is verified regarding (1)the chronology of events, (2)

4


Rulemaking that initiated thisproceeding, the Commission described aprocess for considering the need for newfire safety regulations that would rely ona series of meetings convened under theauspices of the Fire Safety TechnicalPanel (FSTP). In D.17-01-009, theCommission adopted a schedule andprocedures to identify, evaluate andpossibly adopt new fire-safety regulationsfor the High Fire-Threat District. Theschedule anticipated FSTP-convenedworkshops, with a workshop reportfollows by parties comments thereon.

A series of workshops occurred inFebruary, March, May and June of 2017,in which development, review andevaluation of proposed regulations (PRs)took place. The July 10, 2017 JointParties’ Workshop Report set forth the31 PRs that were the result of thoseefforts. Parties had an opportunity to filefurther comments on the PRs included inthe Workshop Report, and the report andcomments thereon served as the basis forD.17-12-024.

TURN participated in many of the 12days of workshops curing the five-monthperiod of February-June, 2017, andcontributed to the resulting WorkshopReport. TURN also submitted openingand reply comments on the WorkshopReport.

D.17-01-009, pp.53-58, includingTable 2.

Joint Parties’Workshop Report(submitted byComcast Phone,CoxCommunications,and Crown Castleon behalf of theworkshop parties),July 10, 2017.

D.17-12-024, pp.11-13 and Findingof Fact 4.

TURN OpeningComments, July31, 2017; TURNReply Comments,August 11, 2017.

the fact that TURN was asignatory to the WorkshopReport filed on July 31, 2017,and (3) TURN submittedcomments and replycomments on the WorkshopReport for D.17-12-024.

Some of the citations do notshow a substantialcontribution by TURN,specifically: (1) D.17-01-009,pp. 53-58, including Table 2:this is just a source for thesummary of the decision. (2)The other citations showparticipation by TURN, butdo not identify substantialcontribution.

3. Cost issues: In the OIR initiating thisproceeding, the Commission directed thatthe process for considering the need fornew fire-safety regulations include thedevelopment of criteria regardingestimating and weighing the costs andsafety benefits of such regulations. TheScoping Memo issued on July 15, 2016,stated that the rulemaking’s scope

OIR 15-05-006, p.13.

Scoping Memo,

D.17-01-009 (notD.17-01-007), pp. 56-57.

Verified; however, as TURNcorrectly notes, inD.17-12-024 the Commissionadopted a number ofregulations despite TURN’sarguments.

5


included cost-benefit considerations andcost estimates as elements of the criteriato be developed for consideration ofapplying the new regulations to existingfacilities, particularly methods forestimating the costs and safety benefits ofproposed fire-safety regulations andweighing the cost and safety benefits.And in D.17-01-007, the Commissionreferred specifically to the “detaileddescription and justification” regardingthe “estimated costs” required for eachproposed regulation that might bepresented going forward.

TURN’s participation in this proceedinglargely focused on the cost-related issuesassociated with the proposed fire-safetyregulations. During workshopdiscussions, TURN repeatedly took theposition that, consistent with theCommission’s guidance, sponsors of theproposed regulations needed to developand present cost estimates that wouldpermit interested parties and, ultimately,the Commission to meaningfully weighthe costs and benefits of such proposals.In the Workshop Report, TURNrepeatedly stated its support for theadoption of reasonable regulations, butcited the absence of detailed costestimates or cost-benefit comparisonsthat might permit a determination ofreasonableness. TURN reiterated theseconcerns in comments submitted on theWorkshop Report itself. And in itscomments on the Proposed Decisionissued in November 2017, TURNfocused on the general absence of suchinformation for the regulations identifiedfor adoption at that time.

In D.17-12-024, the Commission adopteda number of regulations despite TURN’sarguments that the regulation’sproponents had failed to provide costinformation consistent with the directives

pp. 3 and 7.

D.17-01-007, pp.56-57.

Workshop Report(7/10/17),Appendix B, pp.B-23, -36, -43 to-44, -62, etc.

TURN Commentson WorkshopReport (7/31/17).

TURN Commentson ProposedDecision(11/28/17)

D.17-12-024, pp.141-145.

6


in the OIR, the Scoping Memo, andD.17-01-009. The decision specificallyacknowledges, “for the most part, theproponents of the adopted fire-safetyregulations did not provide cost estimatesor cost-benefit analyses for the adoptedfire-safety regulations.” But it explainedthat in a quasi-legislative rulemakingsuch as this one, the Commission mayrely on legislative facts, evidence frompast proceedings, the agency’sexperience and expertise, and commonsense.

4. Conclusion

TURN submits that under the circumstanceshere, the Commission should find TURN’sparticipation to constitute a substantialcontribution to D.17-01-009 andD.17-12-024. TURN consistentlyparticipated as one of the very few consumerrepresentatives in the workshop processesthat provided the foundation for each ofthese decisions. And while TURN’scontentions and recommendations regardingcost estimates and cost-benefit analysis werenot adopted in D.17-12-024, TURN’sadvocacy on these issues resulted in theCommission better explaining its basis foradopting regulations despite theacknowledged absence of the type ofinformation it had called for in its earlierdecisions and Scoping Memo. Furthermore,TURN’s efforts in this regard were focusedon issues specifically identified in the initialrulemaking order and the Scoping Memo,and TURN alone among the parties sought tomaintain focus on those issues.

A typical TURN request for intervenorcompensation cites a number of substantialcontributions that appear on the face of theCommission decision addressing the meritsof the underlying proceeding. In thisproceeding TURN did not achieve itsultimate objective – presentation andconsideration of actual cost estimates inorder to more meaningfully assess the costs

Verified with respect to thefirst paragraph.

7


and benefits of proposed regulations.However, it is equally clear that TURN’sefforts in the rulemaking played animportant role in the Commission’sdecision-making process.

The standard for an award of intervenorcompensation is whether TURN made asubstantial contribution to the Commission’sdecision, not whether TURN prevailed on aparticular issue. For example, theCommission recognized that it “may benefitfrom an intervenor’s participation evenwhere the Commission did not adopt any ofthe intervenor’s positions orrecommendations.” D.08-04-004 (in thereview of SCE’s contract with Long BeachGeneration, A.06-11-007), pp. 5-6. In thatcase TURN’s opposition focused on the needfor the generation resource and itscost-effectiveness. The Commission stated,“The opposition presented by TURN andother intervenors gave us importantinformation regarding all issues that neededto be considered in deciding whether toapprove SCE’s application. As a result, wewere able to fully consider the consequencesof adopting or rejecting the LBG PPA. Ourability to thoroughly analyze and consider allaspects of the proposed PPA would not havebeen possible without TURN’sparticipation.” (Id., at 6.) On this basis theCommission found that TURN had made asubstantial contribution even though itspositions had not been adopted, and awardedTURN intervenor compensation for all of thereasonable hours devoted to the proceeding.

The Commission reached a similarconclusion in D.09-04-027, awardingintervenor compensation for TURN’s effortsin the SCE AMI proceeding (A.07-07-026).There the Commission found TURN to havemade a substantial contribution even onissues where TURN did not prevail, asTURN’s efforts “contributed to the inclusionof these issues in the Commission’sdeliberation” and caused the Commission to“add more discussion on the issue, in part toaddress TURN’s comments.” D.09-04-027,p. 4.

8


Similarly, in D.10-06-046 the Commissionawarded TURN very nearly the full amountrequested for its work in SCE’s applicationseeking ratepayer funding of a carbonsequestration feasibility study, even thoughTURN opposed such ratepayer funding. Inthat proceeding, TURN arguably onlyprevailed on one of the many issuesaddressed in D.09-12-014, the decisionapproving the feasibility study funding. Insome cases the Commission consideredTURN’s arguments and concluded in favorof the utility, while in others theCommission did not address TURN’sarguments because it deemed them moot dueto the outcome adopted on other issues.Even though the overall outcome did notembrace TURN’s overall recommendation,the compensation award found that TURN’sefforts constituted a substantial contribution,even commenting, “TURN substantiallyhelped the decisionmaking in thisproceeding.” D.10-06-046, p. 5.

In D.14-03-015, the Commission awardedTURN compensation for its efforts in anapplication that resulted in a decision inwhich it had declined to adopt TURN’sprimary recommendations, based on logicsimilar to that described above. ThereTURN sought an award for all time devotedto the proceeding, and the Commissionadopted a reduction of approximately 30%consistent with the specific circumstancespresented, such as reducing time devoted tocertain tasks associated with advocacyefforts on which TURN did not prevail.

TURN submits that a similar outcome iswarranted here. As described above, TURNclearly made a substantial contribution on anarray of issues in the proceeding, eventhough the ultimate outcome adopted wascontrary to TURN’s overallrecommendation. Consistent with theseother decisions, the Commission should stillfind that TURN made a substantialcontribution warranting an award of

9


intervenor compensation for its work in thisproceeding.

In the sections that follow, TURN proposesreductions to the hours for which it seeksintervenor compensation consistent with itsparticipation in the proceeding and theadopted outcome in D.17-12-024.

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

Intervenor’s Assertion

CPUC Discussion

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

No No

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

Yes Yes

c. If so, provide name of other parties: In a proceeding such asthis rulemaking, an array of parties had positions similar toTURN’s, depending on the subject matter. On some of theproposed regulations, TURN had the same position as theelectric utilities and the coalition of communicationinfrastructure providers designated “CIP.” On otherproposals, the alignments shifted such that TURN had thesame position as, for example, Los Angeles County FireDepartment (LACFD) and the Commission’s Safety andEnforcement Division (SED), even though each party hadreached that position for different reasons. (See Section4.2.6.2, for example.)

AT&T, Bear Valley, CCTA,CFBF, CMUA, SED,Laguna Beach, ConsolidatedCommunications, CTIA,Frontier, Liberty Utilities,IBEW 1245, LACFD,LADWP, MGRA,PacifiCorp, PG&E,SDG&E, SCE, Small LECs,and SMUD

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: A list of the partiessponsoring the July 10, 2017 Workshop Report appears atpage 12 of D.17-12-024. The list makes clear that of themore than 20 parties, only three represented consumerinterests – TURN, Mussey Grade Road Alliance, and theCalifornia Farm Bureau Federation. While at some level theconsumer representatives have shared interests on suchmatters, TURN’s efforts maintained a particular focus oncosts and cost-benefit analysis. Given the disproportionaterepresentation of energy and communication utilities in theprocess and the impact the adopted outcomes are likely tohave on California consumers, TURN submits that the

D.17-12-024 is Verified.

D.17-01-009 and the10/7/16 WorkshopReport is Not Verified.

TURN’s participation andcontributions inD.17-01-009 and the10/7/16 WorkshopReport do not appear tobe distinct from any

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


Commission should find that TURN’s participation did notunduly duplicate the participation of other consumerrepresentatives who were active in the proceeding.

other parties’.

C.

C. Additional Comments on Part II:D.

# Intervenor’s Comment CPUC Discussion

1. TURN’s understanding is that ORA is technically aparty to this proceeding, and several ORA staffmembers are on the current service list for thisproceeding. However, ORA was not an active partyduring the phase of this rulemaking covered by thisrequest for compensation.

Noted

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

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

a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:

TURN’s request for intervenor compensation seeks an award of approximately$50,000 as the reasonable cost of our participation in this proceeding. Thisamount reflects a substantial reduction of approximately 33% of the costsassociated with the total number of hours devoted to this proceeding, as describedfurther below.

TURN’s participation in this proceeding sought to promote the consumer interestby ensuring that proposed regulations were considered in light of reasonable costestimates and, by extension, a more detailed comparison of costs and benefits.Given the dollar amounts that are potentially at stake for the application of newfire safety regulations to existing utility infrastructure, the Commission shouldconclude that the relatively small amount of TURN’s request for intervenorcompensation reasonable under the circumstances here.

CPUCDiscussion

Not VerifiedforD.17-01-009.TURN has notdemonstratedthat itsparticipationmade asubstantialcontribution toD.17-01-009.

Verified forD.17-12-024.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

TURN seeks compensation for approximately 130 hours of time devoted tosubstantive work on this rulemaking since approximately mid-2016. Thisfigure represents a reduction of approximately one-third as compared to theapproximately 195 hours TURN recorded during this period. This time

Noted

Regardingfootnote 2, theCommissioncannot resolve

11


covers our participation in the numerous workshops conducted in 2016 and2017, as well as our work for input into the Workshop Report submitted inmid-2017, comments filed on that report, and comments on the ProposedDecision.

Nina Suetake served as TURN’s lead attorney in this proceeding anddevoted approximately 171 hours to this work, of which TURN is seekingcompensation for approximately 114 hours. As indicated in the attachedtime sheets, the largest proportion of her work (approximately 40% of thetotal hours) was devoted to preparing for and attending workshops,2 as wellas review of workshop-related work products.

Robert Finkelstein, TURN’s General Counsel, worked with Ms. Suetakewhen she first assumed the lead role for the proceeding, helping her togenerally become familiar with the issues and to prepare for the PrehearingConference. After Ms. Suetake left TURN in late 2017, Mr. Finkelsteintook the lead role with regard to preparing TURN’s comments on theProposed Decision. Thomas Long, TURN’s Legal Director, also recorded arelatively few hours in providing strategic consulting to Ms. Suetake onoccasion.

TURN is seeking compensation for 6.75 hours devoted tocompensation-related matters, primarily 6.0 hours associated with thepreparation of this request by Mr. Finkelstein. TURN assigned the task toMr. Finkelstein despite his relatively high hourly rate because thecombination of his general familiarity with the rulemaking and his extensiveexperience with compensation requests ensured that the request could beprepared in a relatively small number of hours and a lower total cost, even atthe relatively high hourly rate.

TURN submits that our recorded attorney hours in this proceeding, asadjusted for purposes of this request, are reasonable. As such, TURNrequests an award of compensation in the full amount requested.

the allegeddiscrepancyregardingTURN’sattendance atthe workshop;notwith-standing, the recorddoes not showa substantialcontribution byTURN to the10/7/16WorkshopReport.

c. Allocation of hours by issue:

TURN has allocated all of our attorney by issue area or activity, as is evidentin our attached timesheets (Attachment 2) and in Attachment 4, whichshows the allocation of TURN’s time by attorney and issue/activity area.The following codes relate to specific issue/activity areas addressed byTURN. For this request, TURN is indicating both the number of hours

Noted

2 In preparing this Request for Compensation, TURN noticed for the first time that the notes in Attachment 7 to the October 7, 2016 Workshop Report indicate TURN’s attendance was not recorded during certain workshops in which TURN participated by phone. TURN believes that its time sheets are accurate to the extent they reflect such attendance even where the workshop notes do not indicate TURN’s presence. �

12


recorded for each activity code, the number of hours for whichcompensation is requested, and the associated reduction as a percentage ofthe total.

If the Commission believes that a different approach to issue-specificallocation is warranted here, TURN requests the opportunity to supplementthis section of the request.

Description TotalHours

HoursRequested

%-ageReduction

WS1 Work related to workshopsand resulting WorkshopReport in 2016

38.75 29.1 25%

WS2 Work related to workshopsand resulting WorkshopReport in 2017

37.5 28.1 25%

13

Cost Work devoted to costestimates and related issuesoutside of the workshopprocess

11.25 5.6 50%

Cmt Work devoted to preparingcomments on the WorkshopReport in 2017

28.5 14.25 50%

RegRev Work devoted to review offinal proposed regulations in2017

8.75 4.38 50%

GP General participation – workof a general nature such aspreparing for and attendingPHC, dealing with proceduralmatters, other activities thattend to not be issue- ortask-specific

44.0 33.0 25%

Comp Intervenor Compensation:work preparing TURN's NOIand Request for Compensation

6.75 6.75 0%

TOTAL – Non-compensationwork

194.75 127.44 33%

Code


Specific Claim:*B.

CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES

Item Year Hours Rate $Basis for

Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $

NinaSuetake

2016 43.25 $350 D.17-04-038 $15,137.50 14.19[A]

$350.00 $4,966.50

N.Suetake– SeeComment 1

2017 71.13 $375 Res.ALJ-345

(2.14%COLA,

plus first5% step

increase inthe 13+

yearexperience

tier,rounded tonearest $5)

$26,671.88 71.13 $375.00[B]

$26,673.75[C]

RobertFinkelstein,GeneralCounsel

2016 3.0 $510 D.16-11-004 $1,530.00 3.00 $510.00 $1,530.00

R.Finkelstein

2017 8.25 $520 D.17-11-032 $4,290.00 8.25 $520.00 $4,290.00

ThomasLong,TURNLegalDirector

2017 1.81 $585 D.17-11-029 $1,060.31 1.81 $585.00 $1,058.85[D]

Subtotal: $48,689.69

Subtotal: $38,519.10

INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **

Item Year Hours Rate $ Basisfor

Rate*

Total $ Hours Rate Total $

NinaSuetake

2016 0.75 $175.00 50%of

2016rate

$131.25 0.75 $175.00 $131.25

14


RobertFinkelstein

2018 6.0 $260.00 50%of

requested2017rate

$1,560.00 6.00 $260.00 $1,560.00

Subtotal: $1,691.25

Subtotal: $1,691.25

COSTS

# Item Detail Amount Amount

PhotocopiesCopies related toR.15-05-006

$2.70 $2.70

PostagePostage for mailingfilings in R.15-05-006

$3.28 $3.28

Subtotal: $5.98 Subtotal: $5.98

TOTAL REQUEST: $50,386.92TOTAL AWARD: $40,216.33

*We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit the records and books of theintervenors to the extent necessary to verify the basis for the award (§1804(d)). Intervenorsmust make and retain adequate accounting and other documentation to support all claimsfor intervenor compensation. Intervenor’s records should identify specific issues for whichit seeks compensation, the actual time spent by each employee or consultant, the applicablehourly rates, fees paid to consultants and any other costs for which compensation wasclaimed. The records pertaining to an award of compensation shall be retained for at leastthree years from the date of the final decision making the award.

**Travel and Reasonable Claim preparation time are typically compensated at ½ ofpreparer’s normal hourly rate

ATTORNEY INFORMATION

Attorney Date Admitted toCA BAR3

Member Number Actions AffectingEligibility (Yes/No?)

If “Yes”, attachexplanation

Nina Suetake December 2004 234769 No

Robert Finkelstein June 1990 146391 No

Thomas Long December 1986 124776 No

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

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

15


Attachmentor Comment

#

Description/Comment

Attachment 1 Certificate of Service

Attachment 2 Timesheets for TURN’s Attorneys

Attachment 3 TURN Direct Expenses Associated with D.17-12-024

Attachment 4 TURN Hours Allocated by Issue – Original and Revised for Reduced Request

Comment 1 Hourly Rates for TURN Attorneys

Other than the 2017 for Nina Suetake, all of the requested hourly rates arethe same rate the Commission has previously approved for TURN’s staffattorneys in previous awards of intervenor compensation. TURN is usingthe authorized rate for 2017 for work Robert Finkelstein performed in 2018,as it was entirely associated with preparing this request for compensation.TURN anticipates seeking a higher 2018 rate for his work in a futurerequest for compensation.

Nina Suetake 2017 Rate

TURN seeks an hourly rate of $375 for work Nina Suetake performed in2017, an increase of 7.14% from the previously awarded rate of $350 for2016. This increase is the general 2.14% COLA for 2017 provided for inRes. ALJ-345, plus the first of two 5% step increases for Ms. Suetake sinceher move into 13+ year experience tier, as authorized in Res. ALJ-345.

In A.17-11-016, TURN had sought compensation for Ms. Suetake’s 2017work at an hourly rate of $370, using the same logic of a 7.14% increase tothe previously authorized rate of $350 for 2016 work, but with amathematical error that erroneously calculated $370 as the resulting rate(rounded to the nearest $5 increment). In D.18-02-016, the Commissionawarded compensation using the $370 rate requested for Ms. Suetake’swork in 2017. TURN respectfully requests that the Commission use thecorrectly calculated $375 hourly rate here, as well in any future award ofintervenor compensation that includes work Ms. Suetake performed in2017.

D. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:

Item Reason[A] Reduction to Suetake’s hours of 37.75 for 2016 for no substantial contribution

to the 10/7/16 Workshop Report or to D.17-01-009.[B] The Commission finds reasonable a rate of $375.00 per hour for Suetake for

2017.

16


[C] Computation error. 71.13 X $375.00 = $26,673.75[D] Computation error. 1.81 X $585.00 = $1,058.85

PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS - Within 30 days after service of thisClaim, 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 Rule14.6(c)(6))?

Yes

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Utility Reform Network has made a substantial contribution to D.17-01-0091.and D.17-12-024.

The requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform Network’s representatives, as2.adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocateshaving comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and3.commensurate with the work performed.

The total of reasonable compensation is $40,216.33.4.CONCLUSION OF LAW

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

ORDER

The Utility Reform Network is awarded $40,216.33.1.

Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric2.Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California EdisonCompany, Liberty Utilities Company, and PacifiCorp Company shall pay TheUtility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on theirCalifornia-jurisdictional electric revenues for the 2016 calendar year, to reflect theyear in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. Payment of the award shallinclude compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financialcommercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15,beginning May 02, 2018, the 75th day after the filing of The Utility ReformNetwork’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.

17


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

This decision is effective today.

Dated _____________, at Fontana, California.

18

R.15-05-006 ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs

APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary Information

Compensation Decision: Modifies Decision?Contribution Decision(s): D1701009, D1712024Proceeding(s): R1505006Author: ALJ Kenney, ALJ KaoPayer(s): Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company,

Southern California Edison Company, Liberty Utilities Company, andPacifiCorp Company.

Intervenor Information

Intervenor ClaimDate

AmountRequested

AmountAwarded

Multiplier? ReasonChange/Disallowanc

eThe Utility Reform

Network02/16/2018 $50,386.92 $40,216.33 N/A Lack of substantial

contribution andmathematical errors

Advocate Information

First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year HourlyFee Requested

Hourly FeeAdopted

Nina Suetake Attorney TURN $350.00 2016 $350.00Nina Suetake Attorney TURN $375.00 2017 $375.00

Robert Finkelstein Attorney TURN $510.00 2016 $510.00Robert Finkelstein Attorney TURN $520.00 2017 $520.00Robert Finkelstein Attorney TURN $520.00 2018 $520.00Thomas Long Attorney TURN $585.00 2017 $585.00

(END OF APPENDIX)

Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, May 07, 20189:42:33 AM

Input:

Document 1 IDfile://d:\avs\Desktop\R1505006_Kenney Kao Agenda DecGranting Compensation to TURN for SubstantialContribution to D1701009 and D1712024_.docx

DescriptionR1505006_Kenney Kao Agenda Dec GrantingCompensation to TURN for Substantial Contribution toD1701009 and D1712024_

Document 2 ID

file://d:\avs\Desktop\R1505006 Kenney Kao (REV 1)Agenda DecGranting Compensation to TURN forSubstantial Contribution to D1701009 andD1712024_.docx

DescriptionR1505006 Kenney Kao (REV 1) Agenda DecGrantingCompensation to TURN for Substantial Contribution toD1701009 and D1712024_

Rendering set Standard

Legend:

Insertion

Deletion

Moved from

Moved to

Style change

Format change

Moved deletion

Inserted cell

Deleted cell

Moved cell

Split/Merged cell

Padding cell

Statistics:

Count

Insertions 7

Deletions 5

Moved from 0

Moved to 0

Style change 0

Format changed 0

Total changes 12

Documents

ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID#16444 ......R.15-05-006 ALJ/TIM/KAO/avs PROPOSED DECISION (REV. 1) the need for new fire-safety regulations, including potential regulations