icomp claim form - docs.cpuc.ca.govdocs.cpuc.ca.gov/.../g000/m216/k846/216846889.docx · web...

ALJ/SPT/SL5/lil Date of Issuance 6/22/2018

Decision 18-06-024 June 21, 2018

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Authorization to Recover Costs Related to the 2007 Southern California Wildfires Recorded in the Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account (WEMA).

Application 15-09-010

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY CONSUMERS’ ACTION NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL

CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 17-11-033

Intervenor: Utility Consumers’ Action Network

For contribution to Decision (D.) 17-11-033

Claimed: $233,381.38 Awarded: $235,210.70

Assigned Commissioner: Liane Randolph Assigned ALJs: Tsen, and Goldberg

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. Brief description of Decision: This decision finds that San Diego Gas & Electric Company did not reasonably manage and operate its facilities prior to the 2007 Southern California Wildfires and therefore denies the utility’s request to recover costs recorded in its Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account. Because the application is denied on its merits, the issues preliminarily scoped for phase two of this proceeding are moot.

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: February 22, 2016 Verified

2. Other specified date for NOI:

3. Date NOI filed: March 22, 2016 Verified

4. Was the NOI timely filed? Yes

216846889 1

A.15-09-010 ALJ/SPT/SL5/lil

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

5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:

A.17-01-012 Verified

6. Date of ALJ ruling: April 24, 2017 Verified

7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):

8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status?

Yes

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

9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:

A. A.17-01-012 Verified

10. Date of ALJ ruling: A April 24, 2017 Verified

11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):

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

13. Identify Final Decision: D.17-11-033 Verified

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision:

December 6, 2017 Verified

15. File date of compensation request: February 5, 2018 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(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059).

Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed

Contribution(s)

CPUC Discussion

1. Through this application SDG&E sought recovery of $379 million due to uninsured losses that resulted from wildfires ignited by SDG&E equipment in 2007.

SDG&E had claimed that even

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER GERSHUNOV, Ph.D. ON BEHALF OF THE UTILITY CONSUMERS’ ACTION NETWORK (UCAN) – Parts 1 and Part 2

Verified

2


though their equipment ignited the wildfires at issue, they operated their utility prudently and recovery should be allowed. The company claimed that an unprecedented Santa Ana weather event was occurring at the time of the fire ignitions.

UCAN challenged SDG&E’s assertions that the weather conditions at the time the fires ignited were unprecedented. UCAN’s two weather experts examined the data, the historical record and SDG&E’s experts’ conclusions and determined that the weather conditions at the time were not unprecedented

The Commission found that the wind speed estimates from UCAN’s witness are more consistent with the actual weather and wind conditions in San Diego County in October 2007.

PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JANICE L. COEN, Ph.D. ON BEHALF OF THE UTILITY CONSUMERS’ ACTION NETWORK (UCAN)

The reason why wind speeds are relevant to the Witch, Rice, and Guejito wildfires at issue is that SDG&E has claimed that due to the unprecedented weather conditions during the 2007 wildfires, events were out of their control. Therefore, it was not managerial imprudence that resulted in the wildfires igniting.

UCAN reply brief, p 4

If the wind and weather patterns present in October of 2007 were not unprecedented, then a prudent manager would have used the weather information to reasonably manage and operate its facilities.

D.17-11-033, p. 55

The presentation of UCAN’s and SDG&E’s expert witnesses added tremendous value to the record of this proceeding. SDG&E’s attempt to explain why the contemporaneous data collected from San Diego County’s RAWS and ASOS should be discarded were not persuasive. We find the wind estimates of Dr. Gershunov to be more reflective of the actual wind and weather conditions during the ignitions of the Witch, Guejito and Rice Wildfires in October 2007. We find Dr. Gershunov’s utilization of the actual recorded weather data from 2007 to validate his wind speed estimates to be more reliable than

UCAN reply brief (4/14/17) at 4.

3


Dr. Peterka’s methodologies. D.17-11-033, p. 60

Because we find the methodologies that UCAN’s experts utilized in developing its testimony to be more consistent with the actual weather and wind conditions in San Diego County in October 2007, the Commission does not find that the 2007 Wildfires were spread under unprecedented wind and weather conditions. SDG&E fails to show how the wind and weather conditions impacted its operation and management of its facilities involved in the 2007 Wildfires. (Emphasis added)

D.17-11-033, p. 60

2. UCAN and others argued that the reasonableness of SDG&E’s conduct prior to the fires igniting must be examined. The Commission agreed and placed this in scope.

“Several of the issues that need to be examined concern how SDG&E’s equipment caused the fires and whether SDG&E exercised prudence in the operation of their utility prior to the fires igniting.”

UCAN protest, p. 1

“In SDG&E’s application they note their reasonableness in their litigation strategy in settling the wildfire lawsuits. This aspect of examination only focuses on SDG&E’s conduct after the fires ignited. UCAN believes that the primary area of inquiry is whether SDG&E was imprudent, in the operation of their utility by failing to maintain their system such that the fires were started in the first place.”

Verified

4


UCAN protest, p. 1

“UCAN submits that SDG&E’s actions in operating their utility prior to the ignition of the 2007 wildfires is one of the key issues to resolve to determine if their actions were reasonable such that they should be allowed to recover their incurred wildfire expenses”

UCAN protest, p. 5

For Phase 1, the scope of the matter properly before the Commission is whether SDG&E’s operation and management in its facilities prior to the 2007 Wildfires were reasonable. Prior Commission decisions indicate that a reasonableness standard should entail a review on the prudency of SDG&E’s actions leading up to the fire

Scoping Memo, p. 4

3. UCAN and other intervenors jointly briefed the threshold legal and policy issues at issue in this proceeding. While the Commission declined to dismiss the proceeding based on these arguments, the joint threshold brief did provide the Commission an opportunity to examine at an early stage the issues raised

Whether rate recovery would create a moral hazard . . . the fairness of imposing rate increases on San Diego customers, particularly those who were also victims of the fires . . ., and whether SDG&E has already been compensated for such risks in its rates and whether it warrants special recovery outside of the normal general rate case process . . .

We agree with the intervening parties that setting an early

Verified

5


briefing schedule for the threshold issues identified in the paragraph above (Threshold Issues) will benefit the efficiency and fairness of the proceeding.

The scope of Phase 1 is as follows:

(1) Whether any of the Threshold Issues serves as a bar to recovery; and

(2) Whether SDG&E’s operation, engineering and management the facilities alleged to have been involved in the ignition of the fires was reasonable. Each of the three fires should be addressed separately.Scoping memo, p. 6

4. Foreseeability - UCAN argued that Santa Ana wind conditions are a known local condition and SDG&E was on notice that fires ignited by electrical equipment, in strong Santa Ana wind conditions, could have devastating impacts.

SDG&E should have been on notice from prior wildfires in its service territory (i.e., the 2003 Cedar fire) that they can lead to catastrophic damage.

UCAN argued that SDG&E failed to prudently manage their facilities connected to the 2007 wildfires and that cost recovery should be denied.

SDG&E has been providing electric service to San Diego County residents for over a century. Their managers should be very familiar with how Santa Ana wind events, which occur every year, could down power lines and ignite wildfires. In a Commission proceeding involving the 2003 Cedar fire that devastated San Diego County, SDG&E sought recovery for costs incurred in restoring their system in the fires’ aftermath. Even though SDG&E’s equipment was not involved in the ignition of the 2003 Cedar wildfire, SDG&E was put on notice years prior to the wildfires at issue in this proceeding that ignited wildfires

UCAN opening brief, p. 3

“Henricks, MGRA, UCAN and POC assert that the fact that SDG&E had prior experience with

Verified

6


catastrophic fires, renders SDG&E imprudent when SDG&E failed to adequately address the faults on TL 637.100

D.17-11-033, pp. 24-25

Henricks, MGRA, UCAN and POC maintain that the facts show SDG&E did not operate its facilities reasonably prior to the ignition of the Witch Fire

D.17-11-033, p. 25

UCAN and POC maintain that SDG&E failed to act reasonably prior to the Witch Fire’s ignition because fires were foreseeable given the history in SDG&E’s service territory. . .

D.17-11-033, p 26

UCAN’s assertions touch on how SDG&E failed to act reasonably in regards to the Witch Fire. UCAN contends that the Santa Ana wind conditions were a foreseeable, known local condition and SDG&E should have been prepared for the possibility that its electrical equipment might spark wildfires during a Santa Ana windstorm. And although UCAN does not dispute the fact that SDG&E’s facilities were not linked to the 2003 Wildfires, UCAN does contend that the events surrounding the 2003 Wildfires put SDG&E on notice of the fire potential years prior to the ignition of the 2007 Wildfires. As such, UCAN maintains that SDG&E cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its management and operation of its facilities prior to the ignition of the Witch Fire were reasonable.

D.17-11-033, p.25

7


D.17-11-033, pp. 26-27

Conclusion of Law:

#12 “The 2003 Wildfires put SDG&E on notice of the potential for wildfires in its service territory.”

#22: “SDG&E failed to prudently manage the facilities connected with the 2007 Wildfires.”

5. UCAN opposed SDG&E’s attempt to raise the issue of inverse condemnation. UCAN noted that the legal doctrine of inverse condemnation does not prevent the Commission from denying cost recovery if it finds SDG&E incurred costs as a result of imprudent action.

The Commission agreed and denied SDG&E’s application.

The utilities cannot use inverse condemnation as a defense to avoid denial of cost recovery when imprudent conduct results in damage.

D.17-11-033, p. 3

If this Commission denies SDG&E’s application because they find the SDG&E imprudently managed that resulted in the wildfire loses, then SDG&E’s shareholders will justly bear the responsibility for the costs that resulted from their managements’ actions and/or inactions. Unjust and unreasonable costs must not be recovered in rates from ratepayers, and disallowing imprudently incurred costs serves the important purpose of deterring imprudent management actions

UCAN’s Reply PD comments, p. 4

Inverse Condemnation principles are not relevant to a Commission reasonableness review under the prudent manager standard. Thus, Inverse Condemnation was not a material issue in Phase 1 and did not merit a dedicated discussion

A.17-11-033, p. 65

Verified

D.17-11-033, p. 65

8


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 Verified

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

Yes Verified

c. If so, provide name of other parties: The Utility Reform Network, Mussey Grade Road Alliance, Protect Our Communities Foundation, San Diego Consumers’ Action Network, and Ruth Henricks.

Verified

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: In this proceeding SDG&E was seeking recovery for $379 million for money it had to pay to third parties who were harmed by wildfires that were ignited by utility equipment. In its examination of SDG&E’s application the Commission considered several issues related to if SDG&E managed its system prudently prior to the ignitions of three wildfires (Witch, Guejito and Rice). Through efforts of intervenors, the Commission denied SDG&E’s application.

UCAN and the other intervenors in this proceeding sought, at a very early stage, to coordinate efforts in an attempt to avoid issue overlap in our presentations and to ensure issue coverage. To that end the intervening parties held several conference calls to discuss dividing the various issues among the parties.

One set of issues that intervenors identified that touched all three wildfire were the effects of the weather, specifically Santa Ana Winds that occurred during the three wildfire ignitions. SDG&E’s two weather experts had claimed that the severity of the weather was unprecedented and another SDG&E witness opined that they the ignition and spread of the fires were out of their control. UCAN was the only intervening party to examine SDG&E’s claim that the weather was unprecedented, and that the fires were outside SDG&E’s control. By UCAN taking this issue, the other intervenors were free to focus on other issues.

UCAN and the other intervenors also collaborated in several filings in this proceeding, for example the jointly filed threshold issues brief.

UCAN also avoided the issue of internal duplication between the wind experts that we hired. In significant ways Dr. Coen and Dr. Gershunov

We agree that UCAN took reasonable steps to coordinate its presentation with that of other parties, as evidenced by its timesheet entries, and make no reductions to this claim for duplication of effort between UCAN and other parties.

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.

9


examined different aspects of SDG&E’s wind experts analysis, each producing testimony based on the subject they examined.

For all of these reasons, UCAN submits that the Commission should find no undue duplication between our participation and that of the other parties.

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

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

a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:

In this proceeding UCAN’s advocacy helped contribute to the Commission’s denial of SDG&E’s application thereby saving the ratepayers $379 million. The costs for UCAN’s participation, including for the hours for UCAN’s Executive Director, and the hours for two weather experts on wind totals $233,381.38. UCAN believes that our presentation helped inform the Commission of critical issues and provide value to the record. In our NOI we estimated the costs of our participation at $198,750.00.

A large cost component of our claim is that UCAN was the intervenor that dealt with the complex wind related issues in this proceeding. In testimony SDG&E had put forward their own wind exerts who conducted modeling ad wind tunnel analysis of wind events surrounding the 2007 fires.

To counter SDG&E’s weather experts, UCAN hired two wind experts who examined SDG&E’s wind analysis from different perspectives, and they produced 3 volumes of testimony. In the Decision, the Commission noted the following:

“Because we find the methodologies that UCAN’s experts utilized in developing its testimony to be more consistent with the actual weather and wind conditions in San Diego County in October 2007, the Commission does not find that the 2007 Wildfires were spread under unprecedented wind and weather conditions.”2

Given the help that UCAN’s participation provided to the Commission, we believe that our request of $233,381.38 is reasonable and justified.

Travel/lodging costs

CPUC Discussion

Verified

2 D.17-11-033, p. 60.

10


As can be seen from UCAN’s timesheets, Mr. Kelly traveled to the Commission for both a prehearing conference and for evidentiary hearings. In order to minimize expenses, for the times when Mr. Kelly went to the Commission for more than one proceeding, he sought to divide the costs between the cases. Also, in order to save on lodging, Mr. Kelly, when traveling to the Commission for a multi-day appearance (i.e., evidentiary hearings) he seeks to avoid lodging expenses by staying with relatives in Santa Clara and then renting a car to commute to the Commission. As the cost of a rental car and parking in San Francisco is usually substantially less than obtaining lodging in San Francisco, this reduces the overall costs UCAN has incurred.

UCAN is also claiming travel costs of travel for UCAN’s two experts. Prior to the start of evidentiary hearings UCAN sought to minimize travel expenses for our experts by asking for dates certain for their testimony. Originally Dr. Gershunov was scheduled to be in San Francisco for 2 days – one to help UCAN’s counsel prepare to cross SDG&E’s wind experts. The second day was supposed to be his “date certain” to testify. However due to the hearing schedule slipping Dr. Gershunov had to stay an additional day.

Regarding Dr. Coen’s lodging, SDG&E had originally listed her as a witness they wanted to cross, however, they subsequently waived her appearance. Unfortunately the hotel where she would have stayed has a 3 day cancellation policy and SDG&E waive Dr. Coen’s appearance too late to get a refund for the room.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

In this proceeding UCAN is claiming 702 total hours spent in this 2 year proceeding for the work performed by UCAN’s Executive Director, and weather experts Dr. Coen and Dr. Gershunov.

When the intervenors in this proceeding divided up the issues to be examined by party, UCAN took on the issue of weather and SDG&E’s claims that at the time the wildfires ignited, it was unprecedented. To examine these claims UCAN’s two weather experts examined the underlying basis for SDG&E’s claims, including examining the complex weather modeling data and SDG&E run wind-tunnel results. One of UCAN’s experts, Dr. Janice Coen, examined SDG&E’s wind modeling and SDG&E’s experts conclusions. UCAN’s second expert, Dr. Alexander Gershunov examined SDG&E’s wind analysis methodology and also produce his own wind analysis that showed SDG&E’s estimates of the wind speeds were too high. The hours for UCAN’s attorney relate to the hiring/consulting/and presenting UCAN’s experts on wind related issues, but also in coordinating other filings in this proceeding. As

Verified

11


already noted, UCAN was able to successfully present our conclusions to the Commission.c. Allocation of hours by issue:

Total Hours

% of Hours per Issue Issue

71.25 10.65% 1. General Prep (GP)

10.00 1.49% 2. Hearings, Workshops, and Conferences (HWC)

151.50 22.65% 3. Filings (F)100.50 15.02% 4. Discovery (D)170.00 25.41% 5. Testimony (T)106.90 15.98% 6. Coordination (C)58.75 8.78% 7. Evidentiary Hearings (EH)

Verified

B. Specific Claim:*

CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

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

Donald Kelly

2015 20.75 335 D.16-06-028 $6,951.25 20.75 $335.00 $6,951.25

Donald Kelly

2016 205 355 D.17-05-029 $72,775 205 $355.00 $72,775.00

Donald Kelly

2017 200.5 355 D.17-05-029 $71,177.50 200.5 $365.003 $73,182.50

Alexander Gershunov

2016 143 295 See Comment 1

$42,185 143 $295.00 $42,185.00

Alexander Gershunov

2017 32 295 See Comment 1

$9,440 32 $300.004 $9,600.00

Janice Coen

2016 61.4 295 See Comment 2

$18,113 61.4 $295.00 $18,113.00

Janice Coen


$1,770 6 $300.005 $1,800.00

Courtney 2016 6.5 150 See Comment $975 6.5 $150.00 $975.00

3 Application of Res. ALJ-345 – 2.14% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2017.4 Application of Res. ALJ-345 – 2.14% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2017.5 Application of Res. ALJ-345 – 2.14% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2017.

12


Cook 3

Courtney Cook


$150 1 $155.006 $155.00

Jane Krikorian

2017 6 150 D.16-06-028 $900 6 $155.007 $930.00

Subtotal: $224,436.75 Subtotal: $226,666.75

OTHER FEESDescribe here what OTHER HOURLY FEES you are Claiming (paralegal, travel **, etc.):Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for

Rate*Total $ Hours Rate Total $

Donald Kelly

2016 2 177.5 D.17-05-029 $355 2 $177.50 $355.00

Donald Kelly

2017 8.75 177.5 D.17-05-029 $1,553.13 8.75 $182.50 $1,596.88

Alexander Gershunov

2017 7 147.50 See Comment 1

$1,032.50 7 $150.00 $1,050.00


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

Rate*Total $ Hours Rate Total $

Donald Kelly

2016 2.5 177.5 D.17-05-029 $443.75 2.5 $177.50 $443.75

Donald Kelly

2018 11.5 177.5 D.17-05-029 $2,041.25 9.5[1] $187.508 $1,781.25

Courtney Cook

2018 1.5 75 See Comment 3 below.

$112.50 1.5 $80.009 $120.00


COSTS

Travel, Copy, misc.

Travel expenses, copy charges and other misc. charges.

$3,406.50 $3,197.07[2] [3]


6 Application of Res. ALJ-345 – 2.14% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2017.7 Application of Res. ALJ-345 – 2.14% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2017.8 Application of Res ALJ-352 – 2.30% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2018.9 Application of Res ALJ-352 – 2.30% Cost of Living Adjustment for 2018.

13


TOTAL REQUEST: $233,381.38 TOTAL AWARD: $235,210.70

*We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit the records and books of the intervenors to the extent necessary to verify the basis for the award (§1804(d)). Intervenors must make and retain adequate accounting and other documentation to support all claims for intervenor compensation. Intervenor’s records should identify specific issues for which it seeks compensation, the actual time spent by each employee or consultant, the applicable hourly rates, fees paid to consultants and any other costs for which compensation was claimed. The records pertaining to an award of compensation shall be retained for at least three years from the date of the final decision making the award.**Travel and Reasonable Claim preparation time are typically compensated at ½ of preparer’s normal hourly rate

ATTORNEY INFORMATIONAttorney Date Admitted

to CA BAR10Member Number Actions Affecting Eligibility

(Yes/No?)If “Yes”, attach explanation

Donald Kelly December 5, 1990

151095 No

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

Attachment or Comment

#

Description/Comment

1 Certificate of Service

2 UCAN is seeking a Commission approved rate for Dr. Gershunov of 295.00 an hour. Given the complexity of the issue areas he was dealing with and his professional qualifications, UCAN asserts that this rate is more than justified.

By way of background, Dr. Gershunov is employed at the University of California at San Diego in the Climate, Atmospheric Science and Physical Oceanography Division at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. As his Curriculum Vitae shows (see attached) he earned his Ph.D. 21 years ago from the University of California in Santa Barbara. He has extensive climate research experience, is a Senior Lecturer in climate science at UCSD, he directs graduate and undergraduate students in climate science research, is a member of several professional organizations including the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the International Association of Hydrological Sciences. He has also received several grants and awards for his work including being named a NASA Global Change Research Fellow. His list of publications includes over 70 papers and he has given over 200 presentations.

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

14

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


3 UCAN is also seeking a Commission approved rate for Dr. Coen of 295.00 an hour. Given the complexity of the issue and her extensive professional qualifications, UCAN asserts that this rate is more than justified.

Dr. Janice Coen is Project Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado. She works in the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory for the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Wildland Fire Initiative. She received her Ph.D. in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago 25 years ago. She has received several honors and awards including giving the keynote presentation at the Wildland Fire Litigation Conference as well as the keynote presentation to the International Conference on Computational Science. She received a nomination from the National Center for Atmospheric Research for the outstanding publication award for “infrared imagery of crown-fire dynamics during FROSTFIRE”. Prior to earning her Ph.D. Ms. Coen was a NASA Graduate Research Program Fellow. Ms. Coen’s Curriculum Vitae lists 29 Refereed Publications, 26 Non-Refereed Publications. The vast majority of these publications relate to wildfire and wildfire modeling. Ms. Coen’s Curriculum Vitae also lists 13 Invited Presentations on wildfire issues including subjects on Wildland fire, Wildfire Science and Computational Modeling and Landscape –scale wildfire research. A link to Dr. Coen’s Curriculum Vitae is below.

http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/people/coen/

4 UCAN is also seeking a Commission approved rate for Courtney Cook of 150.00 an hour. Ms. Cook is UCAN’s Paralegal. Ms. Cook assisted Donald Kelly by researching testimony and helping prepare the ICOMP form and timesheet.

Courtney Cook received her Associates in Science Degree in Paralegal Studies from Cuyamaca College in June 2015. Ms. Cook has over 10 years of office experience and 3 years of experience as a paralegal. Ms. Cook worked at an insurance company for a year as support staff entering in customer data. She also did an internship at Elder Law and Advocacy for a few months assisting attorneys by doing legal research, filling out forms, managing cases and contacting customers to help assist the attorneys with finalizing documents. Ms. Cook has been with UCAN since October 2015. She started out as an intern and was later hired as UCAN’s paralegal in April 2016. Ms. Cook has assisted Donald Kelly and Jane Krikorian on researching CPUC Rules and Regulations along with reviewing Testimony and Data Responses. Ms. Cook also helps with UCAN’s consumer advocacy and works with utility customers one on one to help resolve customer billing issues. UCAN is attaching Ms. Cook’s Resume and Paralegal Certificate.

15

http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/people/coen/


D. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:

Item Reason

Adoption of Gershunov’s, Coen’s, and Cook’s Hourly Rate

Based on the resumes and biographies attached to the claim, the Commission approves the 2016 rates requested for: Gershunov, Coen, and Cook. The Commission applied the appropriate cost-of-living adjustments to establish Gershunov’s and Coen’s 2017 rates as well as Cook’s 2017 and 2018 rates.

Paralegal and Clerical Tasks

We have found several clerical tasks in Kelly’s time records. Since these tasks represent but a very small fraction of his hours, we forego disallowances in this area. We remind UCAN that we do not compensate formatting, emailing, mailing/distributing materials, and other clerical tasks.

[1] UCAN failed to comply with the Intervenor Compensation Program Guidelines by improperly modifying the submitted PDF and MS Word versions of the compensation request form, combining several days’ tasks in one time record entry, and allocating the amount of time spent on the task in 15 minute intervals. Therefore, the Commission disallows 2 hours from Kelly’s 2018 claim preparation.

[2] UCAN staff sought compensation for $118.00 of non-compensable expenses (meals, hotel charges, etc...). These claimed expenses are disallowed:

1/25/17 Gershunov – Oak Room Charge $48.00

1/26/17 Gershunov – In Room Dining Charge $35.00

1/27/17 Gershunov – In Room Dining Charge $35.00

[3] The Commission notes that bulk printing rates are available for less than the cost quoted by UCAN. UCAN paid $0.49 per legal page and $0.14 per standard page as well as computer usage fees. Many options are available for printing at $0.10 per page, and as such, UCAN’s printing and photocopying costs have been reduced by $91.43 to reflect current and reasonable pricing.

16


PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS

Within 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. Utility Consumers’ Action Network has made a substantial contribution to D.17-11-033.

2. The requested hourly rates for Utility Consumers’ Action Network’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 $235,210.70.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

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

ORDER

1. Utility Consumers’ Action Network shall be awarded $235,210.70.

2. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall pay the Utility Consumers’ Action Network 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 April 21, 2018, the 75th day after the filing of the Utility Consumers’ Action Network’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.

17


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

4. This decision is effective today.

Dated June 21, 2018, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL PICKER President

CARLA J. PETERMANLIANE M. RANDOLPHMARTHA GUZMAN ACEVESCLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN Commissioners

18


APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary Information

Compensation Decision: D1806024 Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision: D1711033Proceeding: A1509010Authors: ALJ Tsen and ALJ GoldbergPayer: San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Claim Date

Amount Requested

Amount Awarded

Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance

Utility Consumers’ Action Network

(UCAN)

2/5/2018 $233,381.38 $235,210.70 N/A See CPUC Disallowances and

Adjustments, above.

Advocate Information

First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested

Year Hourly Fee Requested

Hourly Fee Adopted

Donald Kelly Attorney UCAN $335 2015 $335Donald Kelly Attorney UCAN $355 2016 $355Donald Kelly Attorney UCAN $355 2017 $365Donald Kelly Attorney UCAN $355 2018 $375

Alexander Gershunov Expert UCAN $295 2016 $295Alexander Gershunov Expert UCAN $295 2017 $300

Janice Coen Expert UCAN $295 2016 $295Janice Coen Expert UCAN $295 2017 $300

Courtney Cook Expert UCAN $150 2016 $150Courtney Cook Expert UCAN $150 2017 $155Courtney Cook Expert UCAN $150 2018 $160

Jane Krikorian Expert UCAN $150 2017 $155

(END OF APPENDIX)

icomp claim form - docs.cpuc.ca.govdocs.cpuc.ca.gov/.../g000/m216/k846/216846889.docx · web...

Documents