ALJ/EDF/ek4 Date of Issuance 4/28/2017

Decision 17-04-029 April 27, 2017

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of its Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program (U39E).

Application 15-02-009(Filed February 9, 2015)

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL FOR CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 16-12-065

Intervenor: Natural Resources Defense Council For contribution to Decision (D.) 16-12-065

Claimed: $62,470.00 Awarded: $62,470.00

Assigned Commissioner: Carla J. Peterman Assigned ALJ: Darwin E. Farrar

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. Brief description of Decision: D.16-12-065 adopted a program with a $130 million budget for Phase 1 of PG&E’s Electric Vehicle Program. The decision did not adopt the joint-party Settlement Agreement NRDC helped negotiate, but used the settlement as the basis for the final program, with modifications. All program features specified in the Settlement Agreement not expressly modified by D.16-12-065 will be retained by PG&E as it implements the program. Specifically, the decision provides for:

PG&E ownership of EV supply infrastructure (“make-ready” infrastructure) to support up to 7,500 EV charging ports in multi-unit dwellings, disadvantaged communities and workplaces;

PG&E ownership in multi-unit dwellings and disadvantaged communities of up to 2,625 EV charging ports;

Expenditure of up to a total $130 million in Phase 1 of PG&E‟s Electric Vehicle Program;

Rate recovery by PG&E; Varying levels of site host participation

payments rebates; and A Program Advisory Council.

185172466 1

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

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): June 12, 2015 Verified

2. Other specified date for NOI: n/a

3. Date NOI filed: July 9, 2015 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: R.14-07-002 Verified

6. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified

7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): n/a

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: R.14-07-002 Verified

10. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified

11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): n/a

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

13. Identify Final Decision: D.16-12-065 Verified

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 21, 2016 Verified

15. File date of compensation request: February 21, 2017 Verified

16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes

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

(A) General Issues, Size, Scope, & Budget

NRDC engaged on all issues involved in this application in the formal proceedings and led

D.16-02-065: “On March 21, 2016, PG&E, American Honda Motor Co., CUE, General Motors LLC, Greenlining, Marin Clean Energy, NRDC, Plug In America, the Sierra Club, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Greenlots, the Center for Sustainable Energy, and Sonoma Clean

Verified

2

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

negotiations that resulted in the Settlement Agreement detailing the program that will be implemented by PG&E, with the modifications specified in D.16-12-065. While it would violate CPUC Rule 12 governing settlements to disclose all of the specific contributions NRDC made to the final settlement agreement, those contributions were numerous. NRDC hosted initial settlement negotiations at its office in San Francisco and coordinated a coalition comprised of the Greenlining Institute, Sierra Club, Plug In America, the Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE), Honda Motor Company, General Motors, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. NRDC’s leadership and coordination of this broad and diverse coalition streamlined the settlement negotiation process and facilitated a multi-party settlement because the coalition negotiated as a block, providing collective, consensus-based demands and unified edits to settlement documents.

Regarding size, scope, and budget, NRDC advocated for program modifications to ensure a deployment at a scale sufficient to accelerate the

Power (collectively, the Settling Parties) executed the Settlement Agreement and filed their “Joint Motion for Adoption of Charge Smart and Save Proposal.”.”

As evidence of our coordination and leadership of a broad coalition in this proceeding, See Reply Comments of Public Interest, Automaker, and Labor Groups on Potential Phasing of Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program Application, filed by NRDC on July 10, 2015.

NRDC argued throughout the proceeding for scale and scope sufficient to accelerate the plug-in electric vehicle (PEV or EV) market and opposed repeated calls by other parties to limit the PG&E program to only 2,500 charging ports. D.16-12-065 adopted our recommendation by retaining the same number of “Level 2” charging station ports as the proposed settlement agreement (7,500 charging ports). Through the settlement negotiation process, NRDC helped ensure PG&E’s program would achieve the same deployment target as PG&E’s “Enhanced Proposal,” but with a budget that is 28 percent smaller. Likewise, NRDC made significant contributions to joint-filings arguing against calls to limit the deployment to 2,500 charging ports:

o See Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, November 30, 2015, p. 4-8, sub-sections: “A. Meeting Federally Required Air Quality Standards and State Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Requires Comprehensive Transportation Electrification” and “B. Early Action is Required to Transform California’s Vehicle Fleet”

o See Response of Public Interest, Automaker, and Labor Groups to Motion to Strike Portions of Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s

3

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

PEV market, but in a more cost-effective manner than PG&E’s original, “Compliant,” or “Enhanced” proposals. Likewise, NRDC successfully argued against repeated calls to drastically limit the scope of the deployment.

Supplemental Testimony, November 2, 2015 (responding to motions that would have struck PG&E’s proposal to deploy 7,500 charging stations and limited deployment to 2,500 stations).

o Joint Reply Comments of Settling Parties to Opening Comments on Charge Smart and Save Settlement, April 18, 2016, p. 2-3: “Several opposing parties object to the cost and size of Charge Smart and Save, arguing that it is too big for a pilot EV program or excessively costly.7/ These objections should be rejected for the simple reason that Settling Parties have adjusted the size and cost of the Charge Smart and Save program to be smaller, on a proportional basis, than the SDG&E VGI program as modified by the Commission in D.16-01-045.8/ In addition, the Settling Parties have reduced the size of PG&E’s original program by $494 million or 75 percent.9/ The highest annual cost to typical residential customers of Charge Smart and Save is approximately $2.64, four percent less than the $2.75 per year highest annual cost approved as reasonable by the Commission in its SDG&E decision.10/ More importantly and as acknowledged by TURN despite its opposition, the Settling Parties have modified the PG&E program to include measures to improve program effectiveness, such as deploying multi-port Level 2 charging stations and varying the number of DC Fast Chargers per site to account for likely use cases, allowing for a deployment goal that is marginally larger than that of PG&E’s “Enhanced Proposal,” but with a budget that is 28 percent lower.11/”

o See D. 16-12-065, Ordering Paragraph 1, adopting a program

4

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

with the same Level 2 budget and deployment target (7,500 charging ports) as the proposed Settlement Agreement.

(B) Increasing access in disadvantaged communities

On behalf of the five steering committee members of Charge Ahead California Campaign (NRDC, The Greenlining Institute, Environment California, Communities for a Better Environment, and the Coalition for Clean Air), which sponsored the Charge Ahead California Initiative (Senate Bill 1275, De León, 2014), NRDC ensured the importance of increasing access to EVs in disadvantaged communities identified pursuant to the Senate Bill 535 (De León, 2013) and furthering and complementing the goals of Senate Bill 1275 were recognized in this proceeding. Likewise, we also recommended extensive education and outreach, especially in disadvantaged communities.

In both the formal proceedings and in confidential settlement negotiations, we argued for and secured the settlement provisions directed at increasing access in Disadvantaged Communities adopted by

See Response of the Charge Ahead California Campaign to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program Application, filed by NRDC on March 11, 2015, p. 1-5.

See Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, November 30, 2015, p. 16, section IV(E): “Increasing Access and Awareness in Communities of Color is Needed to Achieve a Mainstream Plug-in Electric Vehicle Market.”

D. 16-12-065, Finding of Fact 22: “The DAC and MUD market segments have traditionally proven more difficult for electric vehicle charging to penetrate.”

Whereas PG&E’s original proposal contained a 10 percent goal for deployment in Disadvantaged Communities the Settlement Agreement and D.16-12-065 adopted a 15 percent minimum, with an additional stretch goal of 20 percent. See D.16-12-065, p. 33-34: “The Settlement Agreement provides for PG&E to deploy 20 percent of the charging infrastructure to serve MUDs (with a non-binding target of 50 percent for MUDs), and for PG&E to increase the targeted share of charging stations deployed in Disadvantaged Communities to 15 percent (with a stretch goal of 20 percent for disadvantaged and low-income communities). While several of the Non-Settling Parties argue for substantially greater deployment targets in these segments, we find little in the proceeding record to support this argument. We will adopt the deployment targets provided for these segments as proposed in the Settlement Agreement.”

Verified

5

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

D.16-12-065, as described in the next column.

D. 16-12-065, Ordering Paragraph 12: “Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will provide a 100 percent rebate to the site host for the base costs of the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) at Multiple Unit Dwelling sites that are Disadvantaged Communities….”

(C) Load Management and Fuel Cost Savings

In almost every one of the substantive filings and written testimony documents filed or served in this proceeding, NRDC has consistently called for the use of appropriate price signals to support the integration of variable renewable generation, improve the operation of the grid, and to maximize fuel cost savings for EV drivers who charge in a manner that is consistent with grid conditions.

NRDC also argued the Commission should avoid locking down a single technological pathway to achieved load management, to the exclusion of other potentially more cost-effective solutions. The final decision retained the flexibility to use the load management capabilities of “smart” charging stations, or other technological means of accomplishing the same end result.

See Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, November 30, 2015, p. 16-18, section IV(F): “Widespread and Intelligently Integrated Vehicle Charging Could Lower Electric Rates for All Utility Customers” and section IV(G): “Managed Charging is Needed to Realize the Long-term Vision of Efficient Transportation Electrification.”

Ordering Paragraph 14. “Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) shall offer site hosts a choice between the Time of Use (TOU) Rate-to-Host option as well as the TOU Rate-to-Driver option:

o Under the “TOU Rate-to-Driver” option, PG&E will serve electricity to the site host or their service provider who will then pass the TOU price signals directly to Electric Vehicle drivers to ensure that drivers who charge in a manner that supports the Program Guiding Principles.

o Under the “TOU Rate-to-Host” option, the Site Hosts will receive the TOU signals and will be able to propose alternative pricing and load management tactics consistent with Program Guiding Principles.”

NRDC contributed significantly to the Settling Party comments on the PD, arguing for a reversal of the PD’s delegation of decision-making authority over the reasonableness of load management plans to the Program Advisory Council: “While the PD retains the load management plan

Verified

6

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

structure specified in the settlement agreement, the PD makes a modification to that structure that is unworkable and in conflict with the legally-required responsibility of the regulated utility. The PD proposes that: “Rather than Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the Program Advisory Council shall have the final say over whether site host’s load management plans are reasonable.” (PD, p. 85.)” (See Settling Party Opening Comments on PD, December 5, 2016, p. 8-9). This was reversed, per our recommendation in the final decision, as evidenced by the following redline of the PD: “First, rather than PG&E, the Program Advisory Council shall have the final say over whether provide input on criteria to assess the load management plans of site hosts (in DACs, MUDs, and non-DAC workplaces) are reasonable. 157; however PG&E shall be responsible for a pproving load management plans.”

Ordering Paragraph 17:“The Program Advisory Council may suggest criteria by which to assess the load management plans of site hosts, but the responsibility to approve the load management plans remains with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).”

NRDC argued for provisions to ensure the Commission avoid locking down one particular technological pathway to achieve advanced demand response and load management to the exclusion of other potentially more cost effective solutions and the final decision includes provisions to allow exactly that:

o See Response of the Charge Ahead California Campaign to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program Application, filed by NRDC on March 11, 2015, p. 6-7: “The Commission Should Ensure Investments are Compatible with Multiple Technology Pathways: The Commission must

7

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

balance the pressing need to deploy commercially available technologies to accelerate the PEV market today against the risk of investing in technology pathways that may not prove to be the most cost-effective or beneficial tomorrow. For example, all three utility PEV infrastructure applications rely primarily upon “smart” communications-enabled charging stations (albeit in different configurations and with different roles for drivers, site-hosts, and third-party charging service providers). It is possible, however, that leveraging the “smarts” and communications capabilities embedded in PEVs themselves may prove a less costly and, by virtue of the incorporation of vehicle and battery data, superior smart charging solution. The Electric Power Research Institute’s “OEM Central Server” is one example of how such a solution could come into being. The Commission should ensure utility programs are designed to be as “future-proof” as possible and to incorporate emerging technologies. Likewise, the Commission should ensure current and future industry standards can be incorporated to allow for continued operation, to maximize compatibility, and to move beyond simple time-of-use price signals toward more sophisticated load management strategies necessary to integrate increasing levels of variable renewable generation.”

o D.16-12-065, p. 26: “PG&E should include specifications in its RFP to ensure that it selects EVSE equipment that is demand response-capable or can otherwise participate in the Advanced EV Grid Support Program.”

o The Settlement Agreement’s requirement of an “Advanced EV

8

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

Grid Support” program, such as the use of EPRI’s “Open Vehicle Grid Integration Platform” was retained by D.16-12-065.

(D) The Importance of Both Workplaces and Multi-Unit Dwellings

NRDC provided extensive evidence to support deployment in both multi-unit dwellings and workplaces, supported by the consensus of state and national experts.

See Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, November 30, 2015, p. 8-11, Section IV(C): “Reliable Access to Electricity as Transportation Fuel at Both Multi-Unit Dwellings and Workplaces is Necessary to Accelerate the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Market.”

See Brief of Public Interest, Automaker, And Labor Groups on Proposed Vehicle-Grid Integration Settlement Agreement, filed by NRDC on September 4, 2015, p. 2-8.

Both the Settlement Agreement and D.16-12-065 retained the focus on both workplaces and multi-unit dwellings, with a requirement PG&E deploy at least 20 percent of charging ports at multi-unit dwellings, and a goal of 50 percent.

(E) Benefits for Utility Customers

Throughout the proceeding and in settlement negotiations, NRDC advocated for policies and program design features to maximize the benefits of widespread transportation electrification. Likewise, NRDC provided extensive input to Settling Party filings, describing those benefits and how the program would provide the ratepayer benefits required by Public Utilities Code 740.8. NRDC also provided rebuttal testimony to counter incomplete interpretations of the relevant statutory

Response of the Charge Ahead California Campaign to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Education Program Application, filed by NRDC on March 11, 2015, p. 7-10: “Plug-in vehicle load is unique in its potential to facilitate such a reduction in the cost of energy. There is no other load of comparable magnitude that is flexible enough to be pushed to hours of the day when the system is underutilized or when there is over-generation of renewable resources. In many ways, efficient transportation electrification is the most visible and scalable application to demonstrate the productive role utilities could play in managing a “smart grid” to provide reliable, environmentally responsible, and cost-effective energy services in a manner that does not leave the responsibility of paying for the electrical grid with those who are least able to do so.”

See Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense

Verified

9

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

standard of review provided by Public Utilities Code 740.8.

Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, November 30, 2015, p. 16-18, section IV(F): “Widespread and Intelligently Integrated Vehicle Charging Could Lower Electric Rates for All Utility Customers” and section IV(G): “Managed Charging is Needed to Realize the Long-term Vision of Efficient Transportation Electrification.”

See Rebuttal Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, December 21, 2015, responding to incomplete characterizations by other parties of Public Utilities Code 740.8 and explaining the importance of all of the benefits described in Public Utilities Code 740.8.

NRDC led the drafting of the portions of the Joint Motion for Settlement Agreement that described how the program would provide the benefits required by Public Utilities Code 740.8 and D.16-12-065 adopted those findings (D.16-12-065, p. 18-20): “The Settling Parties propose the Settlement Agreement is in the interest of ratepayers, as defined by § 740.8, because it will provide:

o Safer electrical service because “all of the construction and installation of the EV charging infrastructure will be performed safely, and to code, by licensed electrical contractors with EV infrastructure training certification;”

o More reliable electrical service by using time-of-use price signals and other load management strategies that shift EV load to hours of the day when there is spare capacity in the grid;

o More reliable electrical service by leveraging PG&E’s Distributed Resource Plan Integration Capacity Analysis to improve site selection;

o Less costly electrical service due to

10

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

improved integration of renewable generation that will result from using time-of-use rates as a foundation for load management upon which more sophisticated forms of load will be evaluated to identify an “Advanced EV Grid Support” program to be deployed in Phase 2;

o Less costly electrical service due to the improved use of the electric system that will result from time-of-use price signals and other load management strategies that shift EV load to hours of the day when there is spare capacity in the grid; and

o Less costly electrical service due to the improved use of the electric system that will result from leveraging PG&E’s Distributed Resource Plan Integration Capacity Analysis to improve site selection.

D.16-12-065, p. 20: “The Settling Parties go on to argue that, consistent with D.16-01-045, the Settlement Agreement will, under § 740.8(b):

o Promote the accelerated adoption of EVs which will promote the efficiency of travel;

o Reduce the health and environmental impacts from air pollution because vehicle electrification results in “over 85 percent fewer ozone-forming air pollutants emitted;”

o For every mile driven on electricity in a typical EV, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by a factor of four relative to the average new conventional vehicle in PG&E service territory;

o Deploy EV charging stations that will increase the use of an alternative fuel; and

o Create high-quality jobs or other

11

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

economic benefits, including in disadvantaged communities, by using union labor and deploying in disadvantaged communities.

D.16-12-065, p. 20: “We find these contentions to be both true and sufficient to support a preliminary finding that the Settlement Agreement provides benefits that are in the public interest.”

D.16-12-065: Conclusion of Law 8: “The Settlement Agreement provides benefits that are in the public interest.”

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?

Yes Verified

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

Yes Verified

c. If so, provide name of other parties:As noted above, NRDC led a coalition comprised of the Greenlining Institute, Sierra Club, Plug In America, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, Honda Motor Company, General Motors, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Given the broad and diverse nature of this coalition, there were substantial differences in positions with respect to many program design elements, however, we remained unified around the principle that the Commission should test different models to accelerate transportation electrification to meet California’s air quality, equity, and climate goals, to support the electric grid, and provide consumers with a cleaner, cheaper alternative to petroleum based fuels.

Verified

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication:

NRDC’s advocacy was not duplicative as NRDC coordinated and led a coalition comprised of the Greenlining Institute, Sierra Club, Plug In America, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, Honda Motor Company, General Motors, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. NRDC’s leadership and coordination of this broad and diverse coalition streamlined the settlement negotiation process and facilitated a near all-party settlement because the coalition negotiated as a block, providing collective, consensus-based demands and unified edits to settlement documents. While numerous parties will be claiming for this effort, each party held a unique view and contributed important substantive positions, discussions, etc. There should be no duplication on behalf of NRDC with these other parties.

NRDC hosted several of the key settlement negotiations at our office in San Francisco (no hours for administrative functions were claimed). All meetings and calls with other parties were focused on resolving key issues ahead of time and were kept as brief as possible. In addition, the hours claimed by NRDC are extremely

Verified

12

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

conservative as it takes a substantial amount of time to work with multiple parties (who traditionally do not work together) to resolve issues in order to arrive at one cohesive substantive position and develop documents that all parties could be comfortable with presenting on or submitting.

NRDC also shared summaries of key issues at hand, discussed initial responses, and resolved as many issues as possible with other parties before submitting documents to the PUC or to the other settling parties.

However, we note the inherent tension that arises in two aspects of Commission policy and practice. On the one hand, a party’s “participation ... may be fully eligible for compensation if the participation makes a substantial contribution to a commission order or decision,” even if it “supplements [or] complements…the presentation of another party, including the commission staff.” Pub. Util. Code s. 1802.5. This clearly means that a party can receive full compensation for addressing an issue that other parties in the proceeding have addressed as well. On the other hand, the intervenor program “shall be administered in a manner that avoids unproductive or unnecessary participation that duplicates the participation of similar interests otherwise adequately represented…” Pub. Util. Code s. 1801(f); see also Commission Rule 17.4. The Commission in fact does reduce claims on the basis that a party’s participation was deemed duplicative.

In this case, we urge the Commission to recognize the extent to which the collaboration among the various parties substantially minimized the time spent in this proceeding, by leveraging each party’s respective expertise. We note that even with collaboration, there was an inordinate amount of work throughout this proceeding that yielded numerous hours on the part of all parties. A lot of the work in this proceeding was developing new strategies and approaches in addition to established policy positions as well as negotiating compromises. Developing such content takes a significant amount of time and should be considered when reviewing the hours.

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

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

a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:

Since the Commission initiated its “Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's own motion to consider alternative-fueled vehicle tariffs, infrastructure and policies to support California's greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals” in 2009, NRDC has been consistently the most engaged public interest group on issues related to transportation electrification at the Commission.

As noted in NRDC’s opening testimony, widespread transportation electrification could lower the cost of electricity by approximately 20 percent.

NRDC was also uniquely active in leading a broad and diverse coalition in parallel settlement negotiations, helping to make a multi-party settlement possible. Through that process, NRDC helped secure modifications that would result in PG&E’s program deploying the same number of charging ports, but at a budget

CPUC Discussion

Verified

13

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

that is 28 percent less than PG&E’s “Enhanced Proposal.”

This claim is modest relative to the substantial contributions NRDC made to the application, the proceeding, the settlement agreement, and D. 16-12-065.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

Many, if not most, of the hours were necessary to build consensus positions within the large and diverse coalition led and coordinated by NRDC. Such effort required multiple settlement negotiations, most of which were hosted by NRDC. In addition, numerous bilateral conversations were required to prepare for settlement negotiations, but those hours are not claimed.

In addition, no time is claimed for internal consultation with NRDC’s broad and experienced team of utility energy and transportation policy experts, many members of which provided advice and insight into the policy recommendations and negotiating positions taken by Max Baumhefner, the only practitioner for whom hours are claimed in this document.

The amounts claimed are further conservative for the following reasons: (1) No time is claimed for internal coordination, only for substantive policy development; (2) we do not claim time for substantive review by NRDC staff even though their expertise was critical to ensuring productive recommendations; and (3) we claim no time for travel or any other related fees nor do we claim time for internal review of the intervenor compensation claim.

In addition, the rates requested by NRDC are purposefully conservative and low on the ranges approved by the Commission, even though Mr. Baumhefner’s expertise and experience would justify higher rates. NRDC maintained detailed time records indicating the number of hours that were devoted to proceeding activities. All hours represent substantive work related to this proceeding.

In sum, NRDC made numerous and significant contributions on behalf of environmental and customer interests, all of which required research and analysis. NRDC took every effort to coordinate with other stakeholders to reduce duplication and increase the overall efficiency of the proceeding. Since NRDC’s work was efficient, hours extremely conservative, and billing rates low, NRDC’s request for compensation should be granted in full.

Verified

c. Allocation of hours by issue:Note: Hours related to confidential settlement negotiations are not allocated to specified individual issues, but included in the “General Issues” (A) category, per CPUC Rule 12 governing the confidentiality of settlement negotiations.A – 58.8%B – 8.8%C – 11.9%D – 7.5%E – 13.0%

Verified

14

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

B. Specific Claim:*

CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES

Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $

M. BaumhefnerAttorney

2015 130 $235 D.15-09-020 $30,550 130 $235.00 $30,550.00

M. BaumhefnerAttorney

2016 131 $240 D.15-09-020 and Resolution ALJ-

329

$31,440 131 $240.00 $31,440.00

Subtotal: $61,990.00 Subtotal: $61,990.00

INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **

Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate Total $

M. BaumhefnerAttorney

2017 4 $120 Half of 2016 Rate $480 4 $120 $480.00

Subtotal: $480 Subtotal: $480.00

TOTAL REQUEST: $62,470.00 TOTAL AWARD: $62,470.00

*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 INFORMATION

Attorney Date Admitted to CA BAR1

Member Number Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)

Max Baumhefner July, 2010 270816 no

PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS

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

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

15

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. NRDC has made a substantial contribution to D.16-12-065.

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

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

4. The total of reasonable compensation is $62,470.00.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

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

ORDER

1. Natural Resources Defense Council shall be awarded $62,470.00

2. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall pay Intervenor the total award. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning May 07, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Natural Resources Defense Council’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 April 27, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

                                                   MICHAEL PICKER                                                                      President                                                   CARLA J. PETERMAN                                                  LIANE M. RANDOLPH                                                   MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES                                                  CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN                                                               Commissioners

16

A.15-02-009 ALJ/EDF/ek4

APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision: D1704029 Modifies Decision? No

Contribution Decision(s): D1612065Proceeding(s): A1502009

Author: ALJ FarrarPayer(s): Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Claim Date

Amount Requested

Amount Awarded

Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance

Natural Resources Defense Council

2/21/17 $62,470.00 $62,470.00 N/A N/A

Advocate Information

First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested

Year Hourly Fee Requested

Hourly Fee Adopted

Max Baumhefner Attorney NRDC $235 2015 $235Max Baumhefner Attorney NRDC $240 2016 $240Max Baumhefner Attorney NRDC $240 2017 $240

(END OF APPENDIX)