icomp claim form - online documentsdocs.cpuc.ca.gov/.../published/g000/m185/k979/185979052.docx ·...

COM/CR6/ek4 PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #15701 (Rev. 1) Quasi-legislative

5/11/2017 Item #22

Decision

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Investigation to Address Intrastate Rural Call Completion Issues.

Investigation 14-05-012(Filed May 15, 2014)

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 16-12-066

Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network For contribution to Decision (D.) 16-12-066

Claimed: $96,291.34 Awarded: $84,649.3484,407.59

Assigned Commissioner: Clifford Rechtschaffen Assigned ALJ: Robert M. Mason III

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. Brief description of Decision: This Final Decision addresses a variety of issues related to problems with call completion and initiation, network maintenance and reliability, outages, and access to emergency services. The Final Decision requires carriers and Commission staff to gather, report and analyze further data documenting call completion and outage issues and to build in opportunities to communicate with stakeholders including state, local and municipal emergency authorities. The Commission also ordered staff to further investigate known outages of California’s 911 system and outages resulting from the merger transition between Frontier and Verizon. Finally, the Decision orders staff and the carriers to prepare data and analysis to inform a Phase 2 of this proceeding.

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): N/A Verified

184347228185979052 1

I.14-05-012 COM/CR6//ek4 PROPOSED DECISION (Rev. 1)

2. Other specified date for NOI: August 19, 2014 Verified

3. Date NOI filed: June 12, 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:

I.14-05-012 Verified

6. Date of ALJ ruling: July 9, 2015 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 R.14-05-001 Verified

10. Date of ALJ ruling: September 5, 2014 Verified

11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):N N/A

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

13. Identify Final Decision: D.16-12-066 Verified

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: January 04, 2017 Verified

15. File date of compensation request: March 07, 2017 March 06, 2017

16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes

C. Additional Comments on Part I:

# Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion

B.1-4 The OII specified that NOIs should be filed within 90 days of the issuance of the OII, which would have been August 19, 2014. TURN was not an active party to the proceeding during the first round of comments. Almost a year after parties filed initial comments on the OII, the Assigned Commissioner issued a Scoping Memo that included additional issues from the OII that were not addressed in the preliminary scoping memo. TURN filed comments on the issues set forth in the Scoping Memo and filed its NOI contemporaneously with those comments. On July 9, 2015 the

2


Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling accepting TURN’s NOI and making “a preliminary finding that TURN is eligible to request intervenor compensation in this proceeding.”

B. 14 This Final Decision was voted on at the Commission’s December 15, 2016 meeting and was originally issued on December 27, 2016. However, because of errors in the Final Decision, the Commission re-issued the Final Decision on January 4, 2017. Parties have been using this new issue date as the trigger for post-decision filings such as applications for rehearing.

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

1. Overview

This docket served as a valuable forum for multi-agency coordination on issues regarding emergency communications, outage reporting and network reliability. TURN was an active party to the proceeding once the scope of the proceeding was clarified. In the 2015 Scoping Memo and subsequent 2016 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, parties were asked to comment on several issues including access to emergency communications in addition to investigations of the root cause of rural call completion failures and outages. Parties also commented on call failures as a result of the Frontier/Verizon

Order Instituting Investigation (OII)

Scoping Memo, May 6, 2015

TURN/CforAT Opening Comments on Scoping Memo, June 12, 2015.

Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, September 9, 2017

TURN Comments on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, October 4, 2016

TURN Opening Comments on Proposed Decision, December 5, 2016

TURN Reply Comments on Proposed Decision, December 12, 2016

Final Decision

Verified

3


merger and other known outages and the customer impact of those failures and outages.

The Final Decision notes that the record in this docket was strengthened by a series of public participation hearings in very rural parts of the state. These hearings helped parties and the Commission understand how communities are impacted by call completion and call initiation problems caused by failures in communications networks. Parties to the proceeding were encouraged to attend these meetings and participate in site visits to experience this “feet on the ground” perspective from community members and local emergency personnel. TURN was an active participant in several of these meetings, often contributing specific examples and evidence of problems with the networks that the site visits uncovered.

Additionally, the Commission held two workshops to better understand the cause of the outages resulting from the Frontier/Verizon merger. As active parties to the Frontier/Verizon merger proceeding, TURN was called upon to participate in two workshops on these outages. At TURN’s urging, the Commission not only voted to further investigate these specific merger transition outages, but to craft merger review guidelines that ensure

4


customers will be protected during merger transitions.

In addition to the public statements, parties filed written comments to review the testimony provided at the hearings as well as provide further evidence and information regarding the causes of call completion failures and outages, including analysis of specific outages. TURN provided detailed comments in response to the Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling and Proposed Decision.

The Final Decision relies heavily on public testimony and written comments provided by TURN in this proceeding. TURN urges the Commission to find that it has made a substantial contribution to the record in this case.

2. Outage Reporting-Threshold

The Scoping Memo requested comments on whether the current federal outage reporting thresholds were sufficient to identify issues and potential harms from small-scale outages and outages impacting rural and sparsely populated communities. The Scoping Memo also solicited proposals from parties for California-specific thresholds.

TURN urged the Commission to lower the reporting threshold for outages because many outages, especially in rural

Scoping Memo, May 6, 2015 at Appendix A-3-4

TURN/CforAT Opening Comments on Scoping Memo, June 12, 2015, p. 6-7

Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, September 8, 2016, p. 7

TURN Comments on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, October 4, 2016, p. 3-4

TURN Reply Comments on Proposed Decision, December 12, 2016, p. 4-5

Final Decision at p. 123, 128-129, 139, 143, 145-146, 150, 165

Verified

5


areas, will “fly under the radar” because outages in geographically disperse populations often do not reach the amount of user minutes required by current reporting thresholds. TURN suggested that the Commission should go beyond the FCC’s reporting requirements and, instead, impose a threshold of 90,000 user minutes to trigger a reporting requirement.

TURN also provided comment and evidence on specific outage events in Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte and urged the Commission to further investigate these outages to identify possible violations of Commission rules or negligent actions by the providers.

The Final Decision states that the Commission will “decline to defer to the FCC’s judgment about the federal outage reporting standard” and notes that the Commission must have the data it needs to ensure reliable communications. The Final Decision agrees that the current reporting thresholds create a “data gap,” so the Commission agreed to lower the reporting threshold for COLRs to 300,000 user minutes and further directs CD to begin the process to collect data from carriers regarding outages of 90,000 user minutes through a standing data request and the Final Decision gives CD authority to revise the threshold as warranted by the

6


data.

The Commission also agrees with TURN that further investigation into recent outages in isolated or rural communities is warranted and directs CD and SED to investigate those specific outages.

3. Outage Reporting- Public Safety

Through TURN’s comments at public hearings and work with county and local emergency services officials such as Mendocino County, the record in this proceeding clearly identified multiple instances of communication failures regarding outages and emergency communications between state and local officials, state emergency services, and carriers.

The Final Decision finds that all emergency services officials need timely and specific information about outages to ensure public safety and to carry out their emergency response duties. The Final Decision includes extensive citations to TURN’s comments to support its requirement that respondent carriers provide 24 hour direct emergency contact information to all local, county and tribal emergency services personnel and to require that carriers should provide timely outage reporting data, at a lower reporting threshold, to

OII, p. 35

TURN/CforAT Opening Comments on Scoping Memo, June 12, 2015, p. 7-8

Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, September 8, 2016, p. 7-9

TURN Comments on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, October 4, 2016, p. 3-4, 14-15.

TURN Reply Comments on Proposed Decision, December 12, 2016, p. 2-3

Final Decision p. 73, 102-104, 108-110, 121, 146, 152

Verified

7


local and county officials.

4. Network Reliability/Facility Maintenance

TURN was an active participant at several of the Commission-sponsored PPHs where Ms. Costa presented photographic evidence and specific comments regarding poorly maintained facilities and potentially hazardous conditions. This “feet on the ground” work was supplemented by comments from members of the public and local officials from the communities where the PPHs took place. Through this participation at the public hearings and also written comments, TURN supplemented the record by providing real world examples of the impacts of outages and potential root causes for these outages.

TURN provided legal analysis of the rules regarding pole safety and outages and the connection to poor network maintenance. TURN urged the Commission to instruct CD and SED to further investigate carrier practices and to identify violations by carriers along with possible fines. TURN also urged the Commission to review the currently pending work on the Commission-ordered Network Study to ensure that the Study will capture carriers’ practices in rural areas.

Scoping Memo, May 6, 2015, pp. Appendix A-5-6

TURN/CforAT Opening Comments on Scoping Memo, June 12, 2015, p. 5


TURN Comments on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, October 4, 2016, pp. 4-14

TURN Reply Comments on Proposed Decision, December 12, 2016, pp. 3-4, 5

Final Decision, p. 15, 99-101, 104, 109, 167

Verified

8


The Final Decision cites extensively to TURN’s comments, both at the PPHs and in written comments, regarding “maintenance and physical network status issues” including problems with improperly maintained poles, loose and hanging wires and other problems with network facilities. The Final Decision cites to TURN’s “examples of improper maintenance [that] were often associated with service that was poor, intermittent, or out.” The Final Decision relies on this extensive record for several of its findings and requires additional reporting by the carriers, orders carriers to undertake studies of operations regarding pole and facility maintenance to be submitted to CD for further review and analysis.

The Final Decision also refers the record in this proceeding to the pending Network Study approved by the Commission in 2015 and directs the Executive Director to determine the “appropriate procedural vehicle” to consider carriers’ pole maintenance practices.

5. Frontier/Verizon-outages

In this proceeding, the Commission sponsored two workshops to take comments from stakeholders regarding the widespread outages resulting from the


TURN Comments on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, October 4, 2016, p. 15-30

Verified

9


Frontier/Verizon merger transition process. As part of its investigation into the root causes of call completion problems and dial-tone outages, the Commission requested comments at these workshops on specific agenda items regarding the merger transition process, as well as written comments.

As an active party in the Frontier/Verizon merger proceeding, TURN was invited to participate in these workshops. In comments at the workshops and in written comments responsive to the September 8, 2016 Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, TURN highlighted several possible causes for the outages as well as concerns over customer impact of call completion failures. TURN discussed the insufficient coordination between the two merging companies, the impacts of software-driven outages on VoIP customers, and failed data transfer efforts during the transition period. TURN noted that hundreds of Verizon customers experienced outages of several hours to multiple days and urged the Commission to further investigate whether these outages were the result of rule violations by either merging company or, at a minimum, negligence in preparing for the transition. TURN provided legal analysis to identify Commission authority and

TURN Opening Comments on Proposed Decision, December 5, 2016, p. 1-3

Final Decision at p.86, 91-93, 96

10


jurisdiction to further investigate and address these outages.

TURN also expressed concerns that the customers who attempted to contact Frontier’s call center were met with additional frustrations and delays, and that further investigation may be warranted.

The Final Decision agrees with TURN that the Frontier/Verizon outages should be further investigated. The Commission determines it should further investigate the merging companies’ lack of “situational awareness” regarding the extent of and impact of the outages, caused in part by poor customer service. Through reports from the utilities and comments from stakeholders such as TURN, the Commission found that poor customer service, improper training, software-driven failures, and poor coordination resulted in wide-spread outages and significant customer harm.

The Final Decision directs CPED to further investigate the post-transition outages, including worker training, coordination efforts, and data transfer issues. The Final Decision urges CPED to use the “materials found in this OII” as part of its investigation, which presumably would likely include comments and testimony submitted by TURN

11


and other parties during the two Commission-sponsored workshops.

6. Frontier/Verizon- Merger Transition Guidelines

In its written comments and participation in the Commission sponsored workshops on these issues, TURN urged the Commission to take a forward-looking approach to the Frontier/Verizon outages and create a set of “lessons learned” to help it review merger transition plans in future transactions that come before the Commission for approval. Based on the record here, TURN identified specific elements that should be included in merger review guidelines including a focus on customer service training, operational coordination, data transfer, and software updates among other pieces that would “benefit the consumer and go a long way to ensuring that [customers] receive quality service.” TURN also discussed that the “state action doctrine” would give the Commission legal authority to impose certain requirements on the carriers’ merger transition plans.

TURN also commented on the fact that many of the Frontier/Verizon outages involved services offered over VoIP and IP enabled networks and urged the Commission to


TURN Comments on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, October 4, 2016, p. 19, 21, 28-30

TURN Opening Comments on Proposed Decision, December 5, 2016, p. 2-4

Final Decision at p. 94- 97, 166

Verified

12


continue to provide oversight and analysis of merger transition plans regardless of the types of technology used in the network. TURN noted that for end-users these outages are “technology neutral” because the end result- lack of service- is the same regardless of the types of facilities used in the network.

“In response to comments from TURN and CforAT,” the Final Decision directs CD and Legal Division to develop merger/transfer guidance for Commission consideration in future merger transitions and also direct CD to focus on customer service and data transfer issues. The Commission directed Communications Division to create a Working Group to discuss merger/ transfer guidance for future transactions as part of Phase 2 of this proceeding.

The Final Decision also notes that TURN “emphasized that the changing technological nature of communications networks should widen the Commission’s focus when analyzing proposed mergers and transfers.” The Final Decision directs Commission staff to conduct further research, as supported by TURN, to understand the full authority of the Commission to impose requirements on merging parties and gather information about merger plans and agreements that might

13


result in poor service quality or outages during critical merger transition periods. The Commission further urged this review to include “intellectual property or other assets in the network “given IP’s critical role in software-driven networks.”

7. 211 Consumer Education

After receiving reports of problems with 2-1-1 dialing at the Eureka PPH, the Commission held a workshop in Santa Cruz to discuss reported outages and technical problems with “short code” dialing experienced by customers in rural counties. The Assigned Commissioner also asked for comments on these issues.

In its comments, TURN analyzed the problems with 2-1-1 and other short code dialing, including the problems reported during the Commission PPH in Eureka. TURN identified problems with short code dialing and programming of Multi-Line Telecommunication Systems (MLTS) and PBX systems. As a result, TURN recommended the Commission should require carriers to provide education to MLTS and PBX customers regarding short codes.

In contrast, the carriers argued that the Commission should not address short code issues in this docket and focused on

OII at p. 34

Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling, September 8, 2016, p. 4-5.

TURN Comments on ACR, October 4, 2016 at p. 33-35.

Final Decision at p. 63-65

14


procedural rather than substantive and constructive comments on this subject.

The Final Decision agreed with TURN that customer service education regarding MLTS programing of short codes would reduce call completion short code failures.

The Final Decision ordered “carriers to provide education to their MLTS and PBX-type customers in the form of bill inserts and education materials available on the carrier website about the importance of and process by which customers may program MLTS-type systems to allow callers to reach short code numbers such as 2-1-1, 8-1-1, 7-1-1, and other short codes.” The Final Decision also directs carriers to meet with agencies and organizations that administer short code dialing to discuss these consumer education efforts and to better understand outages and problems accessing short code dialing.

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?

No Verified

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

Yes Verified

c. If so, provide name of other parties:

Center for Accessible Technology and County of MendocinoVerified

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: Verified

15


TURN worked closely with other intervenors to ensure that customer interests were well represented, while also mitigating duplication of effort and conserving resources. While TURN’s interests in this case aligned with both the Center for Accessible Technology and the County of Mendocino, these intervenors represented narrower constituencies and stakeholder interests. Where appropriate, TURN filed joint comments with the Center for Accessible Technology and coordinated its preparation for the Commission-sponsored workshops and public hearings with both parties. Yet, each intervenor contributed to the record separately. For example, the Center for Accessible Technology conducted a detailed analysis of the public hearing transcripts to provide the Commission with a synopsis of customers’ experiences with call completion failures and poor service quality. The County of Mendocino brought the perspective of local and county emergency services agencies that serve rural areas of the state and must rely on properly maintained communications facilities to carry out their public safety duties. TURN represented consumer interests on a broader range of issues in written comments and was an active participant in several of the Commission’s public hearings and workshops where other intervenors could not dedicate the resources to participate. Therefore, the Commission should find that TURN’s efforts to work with other intervenors to avoid or minimize duplication of our work were more than reasonable and, as such no reduction for duplication is warranted here.

16


PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

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

a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:

TURN’s substantial contributions to the outcomes in this docket resulted in significant benefits for California ratepayers. Therefore, TURN urges the Commission to find that the costs of participation of $96,291 are reasonable. The importance of this docket to public safety and reliable communications is clear. The proceeding addressed a range of issues all focused on the impacts of call completion failures and network outages on residential consumers.

TURN’s participation in the docket helped to identify large and small scale outages, focus on the impacts of those outages to specific communities, urge the Commission to further investigate those outages, and introduce proposals to avoid outages in the future. For example, TURN urged the Commission to adopt a state-specific outage reporting requirement that would help to identify smaller scale outages of fewer user minutes or shorter duration, as well as outages in rural areas of the state where fewer customers live. The Commission agreed that a lower reporting threshold was warranted and, as a result, local and county emergency services personnel will now receive more timely and comprehensive outage reporting data and as a result can better protect residential customers, especially in rural areas of the state. TURN also worked to coordinate the efforts of local and county officials to participate in this docket and to help improve the communication during emergency situations between the carriers and the agencies. TURN also urged the Commission to develop merger transition guidelines to help protect customers impacted by future mergers that will help avoid the outages experienced by Frontier and Verizon as a result of their transition. TURN expended significant resources to attend several public hearings and workshops in this docket to not only contribute to the record with its own comments and evidence, but to listen to residents, workers, carrier representatives, and local officials describe the problems they encounter and to help the Commission better address those concerns. TURN also provided analysis and comments that drew a clearer link between the network maintenance practices and pole safety issues of the carriers and the call completion failures and outages that the Commission has committed to investigate so that the public will have more robust and accessible mechanisms to report facility maintenance problems that could lead to significant outages.

It is difficult to quantify the benefits to ratepayers resulting from TURN’s participation in this investigation of rural call completion. Poor service

CPUC Discussion

Verified

17


quality, improper network maintenance, and 911 outages can have serious and dangerous impacts on every customer in California. Therefore, TURN urges the Commission to find that its costs of participation are reasonable in light of the significant benefits keeping California ratepayers safe, through increased outage reporting, further investigation into several widespread outages, reports on carriers’ pole safety practices, increased coordination among local and state agencies and carriers during emergency situations and additional tools for customers to report outages and improperly maintained network facilities.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

TURN Advocates and Coordination of Effort:

Ms. Costa was TURN’s lead advocate on this case. She developed TURN strategy and positions, represented TURN at all but one of the Commission events held in this docket and worked with other intervenors and members of the public to prepare for filings and public hearings and workshops.

Ms. Mailloux and Ms. Salas played critical roles in TURN’s contributions to this proceeding by working closely as a team with Ms. Costa to split up the work to analyze transcripts, draft pleadings, consult on strategy, and attend workshops and other public forums. While the timesheets reflect coordination of effort on several issues in the case, Ms. Mailloux and Ms. Salas focused their analysis and comments on issues related to the Frontier/Verizon outages, the Commission’s legal authority and jurisdiction, and on TURN’s response to the Application for Rehearing filed by multiple carriers. Ms. Mailloux, based in Southern California, participated in the Long Beach workshop. Ms. Salas provided valuable contributions through her analysis of the hearing transcripts on the Frontier/Verizon outages and drafting key elements of several TURN pleadings regarding scope, Frontier/Verizon issues, and outages tracking. Ms. Salas was relatively new to TURN when she performed her work in this case and Ms. Mailloux worked closely with her to supervise and assist with drafting pleadings and case strategy matters.

Some time record entries reflect internal meetings and external Commission events involving two or more TURN representatives. As the scope of this docket broadened out to include emergency services communications and the Frontier/Verizon outages, it was necessary to coordinate TURN’s work among the internal team and have more than one TURN representative at the Commission events. To conserve its resources, TURN only attended those meetings where it had been invited to participate or where TURN advocates had specific knowledge of the issues in those communities. Further, TURN had only one representative attend these meetings in person, with the other TURN representative on the

Verified

18


phone.

In drafting this request for compensation, TURN has carefully reviewed its time sheets and deleted entries where there was a likelihood of unnecessary duplication. We find that the remaining entries reflect TURN’s substantial contribution and the coordinated work effort by its internal team.

Public Hearings

TURN’s time records reflect time spent preparing for, traveling to, and attending public hearings and workshops held in this docket. These entries are separately coded as “PPH.” The Commission noticed eight public participation hearings and three workshops. TURN participated in panel discussions at the two workshops we attended. At the eight public meetings, parties were invited to attend and to participate. (See, for example, Workshop/PPH Transcript Vol. 3 San Andreas, pp. 335-366, outside counsel and representatives from Small LECs spoke to several issues regarding scope and jurisdiction as well as technical call completion and emergency response issues). Ms. Costa attended four of the eight public hearings, each of which was held in rural areas of Northern California, where she provided testimony and evidence regarding network reliability, service quality and outages. (See, for example, Workshop/PPH Transcript Vol. 6, Eureka at p. 673-680.) Her familiarity with this area of the state and connections to local authorities, company personnel, and emergency personnel serving these areas allowed her to speak with specificity about the problems these communities experienced.

In addition, Ms. Costa attended a meeting of the Big Sur Multi-Agency Advisory Council where they discussed the status of telephone landlines and preparations for winter storms. At this meeting, an AT&T representative gave a presentation to the group and local emergency services personnel provided comment and asked questions of the phone company. This meeting in Big Sur addressed issues very similar to discussions during the Commission-sponsored PPHs, also held in rural areas of the state. Because this was not a Commission event, TURN subsequently filed a Motion to Supplement the Record with a summary of the events at this meeting.

The September Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling requested comments from parties regarding the testimony and evidence gathered at these eleven meetings, which were transcribed. In comments, TURN provided summaries and evidence presented at these meetings. TURN’s participation in these public meetings supplemented the record with “feet on the ground” experiences of network maintenance and outages problems. Almost every aspect of the Final Decision cites to comments made during the workshops and public participation hearings by TURN and other

19


parties, as well as by the public. (See, for example, Final Decision at pp. 33 (Rosvall), 62 (AT&T), 101 (TURN)). The Final Decision also discusses the outages and service quality problems brought to light by TURN’s attendance at the meeting of local officials in Big Sur. (Final Decision at pp. 101-103, 165).

The public hearings held in this docket are similar to the series of hearings and workshops held in the Frontier/Verizon merger docket (A.15-03-005). There, TURN representatives attended the facilities tours and made comments on the record at each meeting along side members of the public and local officials. In D.16-04-031, the Commission fully reimbursed TURN for the hours it spent preparing for, traveling to, and attending the public hearings in that merger docket, including travel time and expenses for those hearings held outside of the Bay Area. TURN urges the Commission similarly to find that participation in these meetings was a crucial part of TURN’s substantial contribution.

Application for RehearingTURN includes in this request for compensation time spent by its advocates to research and prepare its opposition to a still-pending multi-party Application for Rehearing that challenges several aspects of this Final Decision. While TURN took primary lead to draft the opposition, it coordinated with the Center for Accessible Technology and the County of Mendocino to file jointly. To avoid the risk of being reimbursed for duplicative work on other projects, TURN is not including time spent on related matters, including the drafting of an opposition to a related Motion to Stay the Final Decision and the response to several carrier requests submitted to the Executive Director for additional time to comply with the ordering paragraphs of the Final Decision.

Hourly Rates

Ms. Mailloux and Ms. Costa have an approved rate for their work in 2014 and 2015. For work performed in 2016, pursuant to Resolution ALJ-329, TURN has added a 1.28% Cost of Living adjustment to the rates for Christine Mailloux and Regina Costa. For work performed by Ms. Mailloux in 2017, TURN relies on the rate requested for work in 2016. However, Resolution ALJ-329 states the Commission’s intent to adopt a cost of living increase in the first quarter of 2017 for work performed in 2017 and notes that it will automatically apply that cost of living increase to pending compensation requests. TURN requests that the Commission adjust the 2017 rate for Ms. Mailloux to reflect any cost of living increased adopted by the Commission.

This is the first request for compensation in which TURN seeks an hourly rate for work performed by Ms. Salas. TURN requests an hourly

20


rate of $195, which we submit is a reasonable rate for an attorney of her training and experience.

Ms. Salas is a 2015 graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law and became a member of the California bar that year. She graduated in the top 20% of her class with a strong academic record, won recognition during a national trial team competition, earned a three-year Dean’s Scholarship for academic performance, and received Public Interest Law Foundation scholarships for commitment and involvement to public interest issues.

During law school, Ms. Salas held internships with various government entities including a federal District Court judicial internship, a summer law internship in the Washington D.C. office of the United States Department of Interior, and internships with the United States Attorney’s office in San Diego, and the San Diego City Attorney’s office. Upon graduation, Ms. Salas worked as a solo practitioner and contract attorney for multiple litigation firms. Ms. Salas has also been an active member, as both a student and post-graduate participant, of the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy and Resources including acting as co-chair of the 2016/2017 Endangered Species Committee.

In September 2016, Ms. Salas joined TURN as a telecommunications Staff Attorney based in San Diego. TURN submits that the rate we are requesting for Ms. Salas of $195 is conservative but reasonable. Her previous experience in varied fields and in positions that assigned her substantial responsibility enabled her to immediately and successfully assume progressively increasing responsibility for TURN’s advocacy work in important proceedings such as this one.

At the time she joined TURN’s staff Ms. Salas had approximately one year of experience as a practicing attorney for purposes of determining where she falls on the Commission’s adopted scale. The 2016 range for attorneys with 0-2 years of experience is $165 – $225 (Res. ALJ-329). TURN’s request of $195 is within this range and is conservative given Ms. Salas’ additional experience achieved during her varied and impressive law school internships.

For comparison purposes, “close peers” of Ms. Salas that have had rates recently set by the Commission include Rebecca Davis of Clean Coalition (California Bar admission in 12/10, awarded $205 as an hourly rate in 2011, her first year -- D.13-12-021, pp. 10-12); Karla Gilbride of Disability Rights Advocates (Bar admission in 7/09 who was awarded $200 as an hourly rate in 2010, her first year – D.13-12-026, pp. 10-12); and Nicole Blake of Consumer Federation of California (Bar admission in 1/10 who was awarded $200 as an hourly rate in 2011, before the end of her second year). In each of these cases, the adopted rate was just below the upper end of the range for attorneys with 0-2 years experience. The $195 sought here is the mid-point of the current range of $165-$225 for 2016 work. The rate of $195 for Ms. Salas’s work in 2016 is reasonable and should be granted by the Commission.

21


Reasonableness of Expenses

TURN requests that the Commission find the expenses associated with its participation in this case as reasonable. TURN incurred a small amount of copying, postage and phone charges. TURN also includes expenses associated with attendance at 3 public hearings. TURN only included necessary expenses for travel to those hearings held outside of the Bay Area and more than 120 miles from Ms. Costa’s home. TURN did not include, expenses and related travel time for TURN advocates to attend other hearings in Long Beach, Ukiah, and Guerneville. TURN has been cautious when incurring expenses, careful to avoid duplication, and conservative in its decisions to include certain expenses in this compensation request. Therefore, the Commission should find TURN’s direct expenses reasonable.

c. Allocation of hours by issue:

GP General Preparation: Work that generally does not vary with the number of issues that TURN addresses in the case.

NR Network Reliability: Work focusing on maintenance practices for outside plan and network facilities, applicability of Commission rules such as GO 95 and statutory authority for addressing network and plant maintenance issues, impact of poor network maintenance on call completion and call initiation failures, incidences of specific network failures and potential violations of Commission general orders.

ES Emergency Services: Time entries addressing emergency communications and coordination among local, county and state emergency personnel, outages affecting 911 and other emergency services communications and requirements for reporting outages to local emergency services agencies.

OUTG Outage: Time spent addressing issues related to call completion failures and outage reporting and appropriate threshold levels for reporting and recipients of reporting data, legal research and analysis of federal level reporting requirements and call completion reporting rules in other states and state jurisdiction; review of reports and investigations covering specific outages including failure of 2-1-1 calling.

FTR Frontier/Verizon Merger: Time spent to analyze public testimony transcripts, review prior proceeding materials, conduct research, and draft comments regarding the root causes of widespread outages and proposals for future Commission review of merger transition plans.

Verified

22


PPH Public Hearings: Time spent preparing for, traveling to and participating in several public hearings and workshops held in this docket.

RHG Rehearing: Time spent by TURN advocates to analyze and draft its opposition to the Application for Rehearing filed by multiple carriers that were parties to this proceeding.

# Combined Efforts: Time entries that cover substantive work that cannot easily be identified with a specific activity code. TURN attempts to identify each entry with a specific issue and therefore entries with a “#” are limited. TURN does not believe allocation of these entries is required, but if the Commission chooses to allocate these entries to specific issues they would roughly break down as: ES-20%; FTR-30%; NR-30%; OUTG-20%.

COMP Compensation: Work spent on compensation request related matters including draft the Notice of Intent to Claim compensation and this compensation request.

B. Specific Claim:*

CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

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

Christine Mailloux

2014 .25 $440 D.15-08-016 $110 0.25 $440.00 $110.00

Christine Mailloux

2015 .25 $440 D.16-04-031 $110 0.25 $440.00 $110.00

Christine Mailloux

2016 49.5 $445 D.16-04-031, ALJ-329

$22,027.50 49.5 $445.00 $22,027.50

Christine Mailloux

2017 15.75 $445 D.16-04-031, ALJ-329

$7,008.75 0.0[A] $445.00 $0.00

Regina Costa 2014 7.85 $300 D.15-08-016 $2,355 7.85 $300 $2,355.00

Regina Costa 2015 8.25 $300 D.16-04-031 $2,475 8.25 $300 $2,475.00

Regina Costa 2016 139 $305 D.16-04-031, ALJ-329

$42,395 139 $305 $42,395.00

Ashley Salas 2016 53.75 $195 ALJ-329 $10,481.25 53.75 $1951 $10,481.25

Ashley Salas 2017 27.5 $195 ALJ-329 $5,362.5 1.25[A] $195 $243.75.00

Subtotal: $92,325 Subtotal:

$79,953.7580,197.50

OTHER FEESDescribe here what OTHER HOURLY FEES you are Claiming (paralegal, travel **, etc.):

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

1 The Commission finds reasonable a rate of $195.00 per hour for Salas in 2016, given her experience

23


Regina Costa 2016 9.5 $152.5 (1/2 of 2016 rate) $1,448.75 9.5 $152.50 $1,448.75

Subtotal: $ 1,448.75 Subtotal: $1,448.75

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

Christine Mailloux

2016 .75 $222.5 (1/2 of 2016 rate) $166.88 0.75 $222.50 $166.88

Christine Mailloux

2017 8.5 $222.5 (1/2 of 2017 rate) $1,891.25 8.5 $222.50 $1,891.25

Ashley Salas 2017 5 $97.5 (1/2 of 2017 rate) $585 5 $97.50 $487.50

Subtotal: $ 2,058.13 Subtotal: $2,543.63

COSTS# Item Detail Amount Amount

Photocopying Copies made of TURN pleadings and testimony for service, and, where applicable, cross-examination exhibits for evidentiary hearings and copying charges from consultants’ billing

$9.30 $9.30

Postage Expenses for postage in this proceeding $4.49 $4.49

Phone Phone expenses for long-distance, and conference calls for this proceeding

$4.87 $4.87

Travel Airplane, Lodging, and taxi travel expenses related to staff travel

$440.80 $440.80

Subtotal: $ 459.46 Subtotal: $459.46

TOTAL REQUEST: $96,291.34TOTAL AWARD:

$84,649.3484,407.59

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

ATTORNEY INFORMATIONAttorney Date Admitted to CA

BAR2Member Number Actions Affecting

Eligibility (Yes/No?)If “Yes”, attach

explanation

Christine Mailloux 12/93 167918 No

Ashley Salas 12/15 308374 No

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

24

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


C. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:

Item Reason

A Hours related to re-hearing request and requests for extension may be requested following resolution of those matters.

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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. TURN has made a substantial contribution to D.16-12-066.

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

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

[4.] The total of reasonable compensation is $84,649.34.84,407.59.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

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

ORDER

[1.] The Utility Reform Network shall be awarded $84,649.34.84,407.59.

1.[2.] Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision the Commission’s Intervenor Compensation Fund 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

25


H.15, beginning May 20, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of The Utility Reform Network’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.

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

This decision is effective today.

Dated __________________, at Merced, California.

26


APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision: Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s): D1612066Proceeding(s): I1405012Author: ALJ MasonPayer(s): Intervenor Compensation Fund

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Claim Date

Amount Requested

Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance

The Utility Reform Network

03/06/17 $96,291.34 $84,649.3484,407.59 N/A Unresolved Issues

Advocate Information

First Name

Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested

Year Hourly Fee Requested

Hourly Fee Adopted

Christine Mailloux Attorney TURN $450 2014 $450Christine Mailloux Attorney TURN $450 2015 $450Christine Mailloux Attorney TURN $455 2016 $455Christine Mailloux Attorney TURN $455 2017 $455Ashley Salas Attorney TURN $195 2016 $195Ashley Salas Attorney TURN $195 2017 $195Regina Costa Expert TURN $300 2014 $300Regina Costa Expert TURN $300 2015 $300Regina Costa Expert TURN $305 2016 $305

(END OF APPENDIX)

icomp claim form - online documentsdocs.cpuc.ca.gov/.../published/g000/m185/k979/185979052.docx ·...

Documents