A.17-04-015 ALJ/SJP/ek4 PROPOSED DECISION
ALJ/SJP/ek4 PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #16113
Ratesetting
Decision
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338-E) for Approval of its Proposal to Implement Residential Default Time-Of-Use Rates. / Application 17-04-015DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO CENTER FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY FOR CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 17-08-024
Intervenor: Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) / For contribution to Decision (D.) D.17-08-024Claimed: $6,702.25 / Awarded: $6,702.25
Assigned Commissioner: Michael Picker / Assigned ALJ: Sophia Park
PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Brief description of Decision: / D.17-08-024 dismissed Southern California Edison Company’s (SCE) Application to accelerate SCE’s implementation of a default time-of-use (TOU) energy program starting as early 2018.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: / N/A
*See Intervenor’s Comments below / Verified
2. Other specified date for NOI: / N/A
3. Date NOI filed: / N/A
/ Verified
4. Was the NOI timely filed?
/ Verified
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: / No ruling was issued in this proceeding.
CforAT has routinely been held to have eligible customer status. The most recent affirmation of this status came in D.17-05-009, issued on 5/12/17 in A.14-11-007.
/ Verified
6. Date of ALJ ruling: / N/A
7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
/ N/A
8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status?
/ Verified
Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b))
9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / No ruling was issued in this proceeding.
The Commission has routinely found that CforAT has shown significant financial hardship. The most recent showing came in D.17-05-009 issued on 5/12/17 in A.14-11-007.
/ Verified. D. 17-05-009 made a new finding of significant financial hardship for CforAT.
10. Date of ALJ ruling: / N/A
11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
/ N/A
12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?
/ Verified
Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):
13. Identify Final Decision: / D.17-08-024
/ Verified
14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: / 8/25/2017
/ Verified
15. File date of compensation request: / 10/04/2017
/ Verified
16. Was the request for compensation timely? / Yes
C. Additional Comments on Part I:
# / Intervenor’s Comment(s) / CPUC Discussion1-3 / This Application was dismissed without a PHC or other opportunity for interested parties to file a NOI.
Per Rule 17(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission could have set a deadline, but did not do so during the brief period this Application was pending. Because there was no opportunity to file a NOI, CforAT is making its showing of eligibility here.
/ CforAT has already been found eligible in a prior proceeding.
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).
1. CforAT raised multiple objections to the proposals set forth in SCE’s Application in “Center for Accessible Technology’s Protest to SCE’s Proposal for Default Time-Of-Use Rates” (CforAT’s Protest), filed on May 15, 2017:
(A) CforAT questioned whether the Commission could implement SCE’s request without substantial data from the ongoing pilot programs under SCE’s proposed timeframe. (CforAT’s Protest at pp. 2-3).
(B) CforAT questioned whether the Commission could effectively conduct outreach to the impacted customers without the data from the pilot programs, specifically raising concerns and awareness for customer’s right to opt out or the right to be excluded in certain situations. (CforAT’s Protest at p. 3).
(C) CforAT questioned whether the Commission could effectively exclude customers other than those identified for exclusion or review under Section 745 within SCE’s proposed timeframe with such limited data. (CforAT’s Protest, 3).
/
While the Decision did not cite to CforAT’s Protest when rejecting SCE’s Application, the Commission’s reasoning mirrored CforAT’s concerns:
(A) The Commission noted that SCE’s proposal would not incorporate the data from the pilot programs under the proposed timeframe: “[the Commission] would not be able to review the final results from the opt-in pilots prior to issuing a decision on SCE’s proposal or incorporate any lessons from the default pilots prior to Wave 1.” (Final Decision, D.17-08-024, at p. 4).
(B) The Commission voiced concerns that SCE’s proposal would reduce the awareness, understanding, and engagement of the statewide ME&O campaign for customers. (See Final Decision at p. 5).
(C) The Commission raised concerns about effective exclusion of customers under Section 745, especially since the parameters of Section 745 were still being established at the time of this Decision. (See Final Decision, 5).
/ Verified
2. CforAT made a procedural contribution by opposing SCE’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time for the Application.
/
CforAT opposed SCE’s request for shortened time to respond to the Application in “The Center for Accessible Technology’s Comments on Southern California Edison Company’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time,” filed on April 21, 2017. We argued that a shortened schedule even for protesting the Application would be difficult for small intervenors to manage in conjunction with the overall RROIR docket (R.12-06-013), which consists of multiple tracks with voluminous information and proposals from all three IOUs. Additionally, CforAT provided a task list that highlighted the numerous ongoing activities under the RRIOR docket.
The Commission rejected SCE’s Motion for an Order Shortening Time through an email ruling issued on April 24, 2017.
/ Verified
B. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5):
Intervenor’s Assertion / CPUC Discussiona. 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:
The following parties also submitted protests in response to the Application:
City of Lancaster;
Environmental Defense Fund;
Natural Resources Defense Council;
Office of Ratepayer Advocates;
Solar Energy Industries Association; and
TURN - The Utility Reform Network
/ Verified
d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication:
While multiple parties filed protests, the Commission dismissed this Application before any more substantial work could be performed.
Had the proceeding continued, then CforAT would have focused on issues directly affecting affordability and effective outreach to vulnerable populations, and would have deferred to other parties with more expertise on technical questions (such as system readiness). For matters of affordability, CforAT would have coordinated with other consumer representatives, and any other intervenors who share similar interests and concerns with CforAT. CforAT would have expected this coordination to continue through the proceeding in order to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that each party’s work complements or supplements the efforts of other parties on issues where multiple intervenors participate.
/ Verified
PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION
A. General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):
a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:CforAT performed limited work in this proceeding due to the early dismissal by the Commission. The Commission agreed with the concerns raised by the various protests, and CforAT’s Protest helped contribute to the decision that dismissed SCE’s Application.
Given the short time span of this proceeding and the important concerns it raised, CforAT’s costs were modest and reasonable. The transition to default TOU is an issue that raises substantial risks for members of our constituency, but the overall financial impact to any individual customer is low relative to the cost of participation at the Commission. Overall, CforAT obtained our desired outcome (opposing the Application) with limited work.
/ CPUC Discussion
Verified
b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:
The total amount of time claimed by CforAT is very modest, and is reasonable given the potential scope and urgency of this proceeding. CforAT’s time records reflect appropriate activity in response to the Application through its dismissal.
/ Verified
c. Allocation of hours by issue:
CforAT allocated by counsel among various issues as described below. Time spent by other staff is identified separately.
Due to the limited duration of this proceeding, CforAT categorized all of our time as “General Participation.”
d. General Participation: 12.0 hours of 12.0 Total (100.00%)
“General Participation” includes time spent in this proceeding; responding to the Application; and monitoring its progress through its dismissal.
/ Verified
B. Specific Claim:*
Claimed / CPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES
Item / Year / Hours / Rate $ / Basis for Rate* / Total $ / Hours / Rate $ / Total $
Melissa W. Kasnitz / 2017 / 11.0 / $465 / Applying ALJ-Res. 345 (2.14% COLA) to 2016 rate / $5,115.00 / 11 / $465.00 / $5,115.00
Subtotal: $5,115.00 / Subtotal: $5,115.00
OTHER FEES
Describe here what OTHER HOURLY FEES you are Claiming (paralegal, travel **, etc.):
Item / Year / Hours / Rate $ / Basis for Rate* / Total $ / Hours / Rate / Total $
Kate Woodford
(Analyst) / 2017 / 1.0 / $145 / Applying ALJ Res. 345 to 2016 rate (=$143, then round up) / $145.00 / 1 / $145.00 / $145.00
Subtotal: $145.00 / Subtotal: $145.00
INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **
Item / Year / Hours / Rate $ / Basis for Rate* / Total $ / Hours / Rate / Total $
Melissa W. Kasnitz / 2017 / 2.5 / $232.50 / ½ approved rate / $581.25 / 2.5 / $232.50 / $581.25
Michael A. Iseri / 2017 / 8.2 / $105 / See comment below. / $861.00 / 8.2 / $105.00 / $861.00
Subtotal: $1442.25 / Subtotal: $1,442.25
TOTAL REQUEST: $6702.25 / TOTAL AWARD: $6,702.25
*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 INFORMATION
Attorney / Date Admitted to CA BAR[1] / Member Number / Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)
If “Yes”, attach explanation
Melissa W. Kasnitz / December, 1992 / 162679 / No, but includes periods of “inactive” status prior to 1997
Michael A. Iseri / December, 2015 / 307607 / No
C. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:
Item / ReasonA / The Commission finds reasonable a rate of $210 per hour, given Iseri’s stated experience working with the disabled community on legal issues.
PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS
A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim? / NoB. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))? / Yes
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. CforAT has made a substantial contribution to D.17-08-024.
2. The requested hourly rates for CforAT’s representatives 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 are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed.
4. The total of reasonable compensation is $6,702.25.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of
Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.
ORDER
1. Center for Accessible Technology shall be awarded $6,702.25.
2. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Southern California Edison shall pay Center for Accessible Technology 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 December 18, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Center for Accessible Technology’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.
3. The comment period for today’s decision is waived.
This decision is effective today.
Dated ______, at San Francisco, California.
- 2 -
A.17-04-015 ALJ/SJP/ek4 PROPOSED DECISION
APPENDIX
Compensation Decision Summary Information
Compensation Decision: / Modifies Decision? / NoContribution Decision(s): / D1708024
Proceeding(s): / A1704015
Author: / ALJ Park
Payer(s): / Southern California Edison Company
Intervenor Information
Intervenor / Claim Date / Amount Requested / Amount Awarded / Multiplier? / Reason Change/DisallowanceCenter for Accessible Technology / October 04, 2017 / $6,702.25 / $6,702.25 / N/A / N/A
Advocate Information
First Name / Last Name / Type / Intervenor / Hourly Fee Requested / Year Hourly Fee Requested / Hourly Fee AdoptedMelissa / Kasnitz / Attorney / CforAT / $465 / 2017 / $465
Michael / Iseri / Attorney / CforAT / $210 / 2017 / $210
Kate / Woodford / Analyst / CforAT / $145 / 2017 / $145
(END OF APPENDIX)
[1] This information may be obtained through the State Bar of California’s website at http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch .