docs.cpuc.ca.gov · web viewthe commission in d.15-08-023 awarded turn approximately $1.5 million...

ALJ/RL8/ML2/avs PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID#18639Ratestting

Decision ______________

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902M) for Authority, Among Other Things, to Update its Electric and Gas Revenue Requirement and Base Rates Effective on January 1, 2019.

Application 17-10-007

Application of Southern California Gas Company (U904G) for Authority, Among Other Things, to Update its Gas Revenue Requirement and Base Rates Effective on January 1, 2019.

Application 17-10-008

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 19-09-051

Intervenor: The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

For contribution to Decision (D.) 19-09-051

Claimed: $1,138,050.16 Awarded: $1,138,050.16

Assigned Commissioner: Liane M. Randolph

Assigned ALJ: Rafael Lirag and Manisha Lakhanpal

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. Brief description of Decision: In D.19-09-051, Decision Addressing the Test Year 2019 General Rate Cases of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company, the Commission authorized general rate case (GRC) revenue requirements for San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for 2019-2021.

344035277 1

A.17-10-007 et al ALJ/RL8/ML2/avs PROPOSED DECISION

B. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-18121:

Intervenor CPUC VerificationTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)):

1. Date of Prehearing Conference: 1/10/2018 Verified

2. Other specified date for NOI: N/A

3. Date NOI filed: 2/9/2018 Verified

4. Was the NOI timely filed? YesShowing 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.16-08-006 Verified

6. Date of ALJ ruling: 11/28/16 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.16-08-006 Verified

10. Date of ALJ ruling: 11/28/16 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.19-09-051 Verified

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 10/1/2019 Verified

15. File date of compensation request: 12/2/2019 Verified

16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes

C. Additional Comments on Part I: (use line reference # as appropriate)

1 All statutory references are to California Public Utilities Code unless indicated otherwise.

2


# Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion

9, 10 In TURN’s NOI, TURN cited to the finding of significant financial hardship made in proceeding I.15-08-019 by ALJ Ruling on 11/8/17. However, that finding was issued a month after this proceeding commenced, not before. TURN should have cited to the finding made in proceeding A.16-08-006 on 11/28/16 and corrects that reference here.

Noted

As authorized by the Commission in D.18-04-016, this request includes TURN’s hours and costs incurred in SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’s Risk Assessment and Mitigation Phase (RAMP) proceedings, I.16-10-015 and I.16-10-016. The RAMP proceedings provided an opportunity for the Commission’s Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) to review both utilities’ RAMP reports for compliance, and also for parties to file comments and reply comments on the RAMP reports in anticipation of the utilities RAMP showings in the GRC. With this process complete, the Commission closed the RAMP proceedings in D.18-04-016, explaining that “[p]roposed spending for safety mitigation and activities and the efficiency of risk mitigation funding are to be reviewed in the Test Year 2019 GRC applications.” (D.18-04-016, p. 2).

Noted

3


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): (For each contribution, support with specific reference to the record.)

Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

CPUC Discussion

Overview and Overall Outcome

In D.19-09-015, the Commission authorized annual increases in base revenues for both utilities in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

SDG&E’s original request included an increase of 11% in Test Year (TY) 2019 (approximately $218 million), which SDG&E reduced to $217 million to incorporate the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. SDG&E requested additional increases of 7%, 5%, and 5% in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively.

SoCalGas’s original request included a 19.1% increase in TY 2019 ($480 million), which SoCalGas reduced to $475 million to incorporate the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. SoCalGas requested additional increases in 2020, 2021, and 2022 of 8%, 6%, and 6%, respectively.

TURN sponsored 10 volumes of testimony, analyzing and proposing substantial reductions to many areas of the utilities’ TY 2019 requests. TURN did not address the utilities’ proposed general post-test year increases, due to coordination with other intervenors who were focusing on this issue. Instead, TURN

D.19-09-051, p. 2 and Attachment C (SDG&E)

D.19-09-051, p. 3 and Attachment C (SoCalGas)

D.19-09-051, p. 6 (treatment of 2022 requests)

TURN Testimony:

Exhibits 490 (Testimony of Eric Borden, TURN-01), 491 (Borden Attachments)

Exhibits 492 (Testimony of Kevin Woodruff, TURN-02), 493 (Woodruff Attachments)

Exhibits 494 (Testimony of William Perea Marcus, TURN-03), 494C (Marcus Testimony CONF), 495 (Marcus Attachments), 496C (Marcus Attachments CONF)

Exhibit 497 (Testimony of Hayley Goodson, TURN-04)

Exhibits 498 (Testimony of Garrick Jones et al., TURN-05), 498C (Jones/Marcus Testimony CONF), 499 (Jones/Marcus Attachments), 500C (Jones/Marcus Attachments CONF)

Exhibits 501 (Testimony of Jaime McGovern, TURN-06), 502 (McGovern Attachments)

Exhibit 503 (Testimony of Robert Finkelstein, TURN-07)

Exhibit 504 (Testimony of

Verified

4


addressed both utilities’ requests for a fourth year in their 2019 GRC cycle (referred to herein as a “third attrition year”), recommending that the Commission reject this request.

In D.19-09-051, the Commission authorized substantially smaller increases for both utilities than requested. For SDG&E, the Commission authorized an increase of $107 million in 2019 (5.7%), approximately $111 million less than requested by SDG&E. This reduction from SDG&E’s request is presented as $212.5 million in D.19-09-051, reflecting the removal of $99.354 million from 2018 revenues at present rates for the Otay Mesa Energy Center (OMEC), as explained further below.

For SoCalGas, the Commission authorized a $314 million (12.8%) increase, which was approximately $166 million less than SoCalGas’s original request.

Finally, the Commission declined to adopt a revenue requirement for 2022 for both utilities, as recommended by TURN and other intervenors.

In the sections that follow, TURN demonstrates our substantial contribution to each of these outcomes.

Jennifer Dowdell, TURN-08) Testimony)

Exhibit 505 (Testimony of Marcel Hawiger, TURN-09)

Exhibits 506 (Testimony of Catherine Yap – TURN/SCGC, TURN-SCGC-01), 507 (Yap Attachments), 507C (Yap Attachments CONF)

RAMP [“RAMP”]

(1) RAMP Showing

TURN actively participated in SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’s RAMP proceedings that preceded

TURN Opening Comments on the Sempra Utilities RAMP Report and SED Report, filed 4/24/17 in I.16-10-015 et al.; See also TURN Protest, filed 11/17/17 in A.17-10-

Verified

5


their Test Year 2019 GRCs (I.16-10-015 and -016). TURN addressed the deficiencies in the utilities’ RAMP reports, specifically that their Risk Spend Efficiency (RSE) calculations were based on a flawed methodology (as admitted to by SDG&E and SoCalGas) that rendered them unsuitable to use for prioritizing safety work. TURN pointed out that, absent truly useful RSE calculations, the utilities’ GRC showing would need to otherwise demonstrate that they chose cost-effective programs in their portfolios of GRC safety work.

In D.18-04-016, which closed the RAMP proceedings, the Commission concluded that the “RAMP process had positive impacts.” The Commission explained, “SDG&E and SoCalGas also benefitted from suggested improvements, as well as criticisms from SED and intervenors, and further enhancements to the RAMP process can be taken into account t and addressed in future RAMP filings or in SDG&E’s [and] SoCalGas’s TY2019 GRC applications.” Then in the Scoping Memo adopted in the TY2019 GRC, the Commission agreed with TURN (and others) that it would need to evaluate whether “mitigation programs and projects that address safety risks are reasonably balanced with costs associated with such programs and projects.” Likewise in D.19-09-051, the Commission recognized the shortcomings in the RAMP reports and clarified that funding decisions were not dictated by the RAMP analysis, but “rather on standard GRC

007 et al., p. 8

D.18-04-016, p. 15

Assigned Commissioner’s Scoping Memorandum and Ruling, issued 1/29/18 in A.17-10-007 et al., pp. 4-5

D.19-09-051, pp. 22-23

6


methods, such as the quality of the forecast, counterarguments by intervernors, and whether a given showing met the burden of proof.” The Commission also looked forward to improvements in the RAMP process in future GRC filings to “provide better answers to the core questions of what spending is proposed to mitigate risks, and how past spending reduced risk per dollar spent,” as “answers to those questions are not available to use here.”

(2) Consolidating RAMP and GRC Hours and Costs for Intervenor Compensation Purposes

TURN recommended that the Commission permit intervenors in the RAMP proceedings to include their hours and costs associated with such work in a request for intervenor compensation submitted in the TY 2019 GRC proceeding, rather than filing two separate claims. In D.18-04-016, the Commission adopted the approach advocated by TURN. The Commission noted, “Allowing a single filing also benefits the Commission in that it will only have to conduct a single review.”

TURN Response to SDG&E and SoCalGas Motion to Close Proceeding, filed 3/20/18 in I.16-10-015 et al., pp. 3-4

D.18-04-016, p. 13

Verified

Gas Distribution – SoCalGas [“GasDist”]

(1) Main Maintenance

TURN opposed SoCalGas’s use of a trend analysis to forecast main maintenance base costs because of fluctuating historic costs, instead proposing a five-year 2013-2017 average. The

Ex. 505 (Testimony of Marcel Hawiger), pp. 2-4

D.19-09-051, p. 46

Verified

7


Commission agreed with TURN that SoCalGas’s trend was unreasonable. The Commission adopted a three-year 2014-2016 forecast (instead of TURN’s five-year forecast), reducing the utility’s request by $2.6 million.

(2) Service Maintenance

TURN opposed SoCalGas’s use of a trend analysis to forecast service maintenance base costs because of fluctuating historic costs, instead proposing a five-year 2013-2017 average. The Commission agreed with TURN that SoCalGas’s trend was unreasonable. The Commission adopted a three-year 2014-2016 forecast (instead of TURN’s five-year forecast), reducing the utility’s request by $1.1 million.

Ex. 505 (Testimony of Marcel Hawiger), pp. 5-7

D.19-09-051, p. 47

Verified

Gas Transmission – SoCalGas [“GasT”]

(1) Technical Services

TURN recommended a reduction of $24.090 million to SoCalGas’s forecast for gas transmission expense technical services, explaining that the utility had failed to justify a 1,300% increase in spending for HCA mitigation, rights-of-way maintenance, and the Southern Gas System Reliability Project (relating to the North-South Pipeline, discussed below). TURN instead recommended a five-year 2013-2017 average of $2.376 million with no incremental spending. The Commission agreed that a five-year average should be used but based the forecast on 2012-2016. The Commission also agreed that SoCalGas failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the majority of the proposed

Ex. 490 (Testimony of Eric Borden), pp. 40-42

D.19-09-051, pp. 103-107

Verified

8


incremental spending. The Commission reduced the forecast by $21.223 million out of the $24.090 million proposed by TURN.

(2) North-South Pipeline

TURN (and the Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC)) recommended that the Commission reject all $21 million requested by SoCalGas for cost recovery associated with the North-South Pipeline Project. The Commission agreed with TURN and other parties opposing cost recovery that all cost recovery should be denied, reducing SoCalGas’s forecast by $7.162 million per year.

Ex. 506 (Testimony of Catherine Yap on Behalf of TURN/SCGC), pp. 1-10

D.19-09-051, pp. 118-120

Verified

(3) Morongo Rights-of-Way Memorandum and Balancing Account

TURN recommended that the Commission deny SoCalGas’s requests for a new memorandum account and a new balancing account for right-of-way and pipeline construction costs associated with the Morongo Reservation. The Commission agreed with TURN (and Cal Advocates) that the balancing account should be rejected, although the Commission authorized the memo account.

Though the decision states that the authorization of a memorandum account represents agreement with ORA (now Cal Advocates), the Commission should find that TURN’s efforts served to supplement and complement the staff’s efforts on this issue (See Cal. Pub. Util.

Ex. 503 (Testimony of Robert Finkelstein), pp. 12-21

D.19-09-051, pp. 137-141

Ex. 408 (ORA-13 – Testimony of Y. Lasko), p. 18; ORA Opening Brief, p. 97

Ex. 503 (Finkelstein Testimony), p. 14

TURN Opening Brief, pp. 40, 47-49; TURN Reply Brief, pp. 15-17

Verified

9


Code Section 1802.5). The recommendation presented in Cal Advocates’ testimony and opening brief consisted of a single sentence in each. TURN’s testimony stated that if the Commission were to authorize a memorandum account, it should be with the restrictions proposed by Cal Advocates. TURN’s briefs elaborated on the reasons for rejecting a balancing account, and reiterated the support for Cal Advocates’ position as an alternative outcome. Under these circumstances, the Commission should find TURN made a substantial contribution pursuant to Section 1802.

Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP) – SoCalGas [“PSEP”]

(1) Contingency Adders

TURN (and SCGC) recommended that the Commission reject SoCalGas’s proposed 25% (on average) contingency adder for pressure test projects and pipeline replacement projects. Although the Commission accepted the request for a contingency, the Commission agreed with TURN/SCGC that these projects have a “lesser degree of unpredictable variables” and reduced the requested contingency for each project by 10 percentage points, from an average of approximately 25% to 15%. This 40% contingency reduction reduced SoCalGas’s forecast by approximately $25 million for pressure test projects and $23 million for pipeline replacement projects.

Ex. 506 (Testimony of Catherine Yap on Behalf of TURN/SCGC), pp. 35-43 (recommending a reduction to the PSEP forecast by $62.99 million for pressure test projects and $56.601 million for pipeline replacement projects to remove the contingency adders)

TURN/SCGC Opening Brief, pp. 18-30

D.19-09-051, pp. 204-206

Verified

10


(2) Line 44-1008 Replacement

TURN (and SCGC) recommended that the Commission disallow the entire cost of PSEP replacement project “Line 44-1008,” except for $700,000 in environmental review costs, because there is no possibility for the project to be completed within the rate case cycle. The resulting disallowance would be approximately $76.5 million. The Commission agreed with TURN/SCGC and disallowed the full $76.6 million for now, instead suggested that SoCalGas should request authorization for this project in its next GRC application.

Ex. 506 (Yap Testimony), pp. 43-46


D.19-09-051, pp. 212-214

Verified

(3) PSEP 2-Way Balancing Account

TURN/SCGC and other parties opposed SoCalGas’s request to continue two-way balancing account treatment for PSEP. TURN noted, among other things, that the proposed Phase 2A and 1B projects are located in areas that are less densely populated, which make project costs less uncertain as compared to projects located in more urbanized locations. The Commission agreed that two-way balancing account treatment was no longer reasonable, given the factors cited by TURN and other parties. The Commission instead authorized the creation of a memorandum account for potential cost overruns, with recovery of such costs only permitted following a reasonableness review by the Commission in SoCalGas’s next GRC.



D.19-09-051, pp. 217-219

Verified

11


(4) Requirements of D.11-06-017 for “Phase 2B” projects

TURN/SCGC argued that the costs of re-testing pre-1970 pipelines that have documentation of a pressure test that met then-applicable standards – referred to by SoCalGas as “Phase 2B” projects -- should not be recovered as part of PSEP. TURN/SCGC and Cal Advocates pointed to D.11-06-017 and subsequent decisions to support this position. SoCalGas and SDG&E argued instead that re-testing all such pipeline was required by D.11-06-017 as part of PSEP.

The proposed decision would have concluded that Phase 2B projects should be funded as part of PSEP. However, following comments on the proposed decision, the Commission modified the proposed decision to ensure that such projects quantifiably mitigate risk and are reasonable for ratepayers to fund. The Commission required SoCalGas to file a proposed implementation plan for Phase 2B pipelines that may be re-tested as part of its 2019 RAMP filing, which must identify all Phase 2B pipelines and indicate which of those SoCalGas proposes to re-test; compare the pre-1970 test elements to the 1970 test elements; provide an independent engineer’s evaluation of SoCalGas’s proposal for which pipelines to re-test; include the forecast costs of re-testing; and provide a complete discussion of the risk-spend efficiency of the dollars proposed to be spent.

Although this outcome is different



Proposed Decision, Revision 1 (Redlined Version), pp. 207-208

D.19-09-051, pp. 219-222

Verified

12


than that advocated by TURN/SCGC, it provides some of the same benefits because ratepayers will only be asked to fund Phase 2B re-testing projects that provide meaningful risk-reduction at a reasonable price, given the level of risk reduction. This outcome is very different from the utilities’ proposal that all such projects would be required by D.11-06-017, leaving the Commission to consider only the reasonableness of costs, not the work itself.

Lost and Unaccounted For Gas (LUAF) [“LUAF”]

TURN recommended that the Commission carefully consider the potential for unintended consequences if the Commission were to change the ratemaking for LUAF in this GRC as proposed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). TURN pointed out that most of LUAF gas is not due to gas leakage (causing methane emissions), but due to normal meter error. TURN explained, “Just as EDF worries that LUAF gas cost recovery might be a dis-incentive to fixing leaks, so TURN worries that denying LUAF gas cost recovery could provide a counter-productive incentive for the company to invest in fixing totally trivial and unimportant meter errors with expensive solutions that simply escalate costs with no environmental benefits.” The Commission agreed with TURN that denying LUAF gas cost recovery in the GRC could create counter-productive incentives for the utility. The Commission

TURN Reply Brief Concerning the Lost and Unaccounted For Gas (LUAF) Scoping Issue, pp. 2, 7-8

Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling on Lost and Unaccounted For Gas, issued 3/8/18, p. 3

Verified

13


decided to exclude LUAF from the scope of this proceeding and directed interested parties to instead raise concerns with current ratemaking in Rulemaking 15-01-008 and SoCalGas’s Triennial Cost Allocation Proceeding.

Electric Generation – SDG&E [“Gen”]

(1) Otay Mesa Energy Center (OMEC)

SDG&E originally proposed a 2019 revenue requirement increase of approximately $68 million as the costs related to its expected purchase and operation of OMEC. TURN’s testimony noted that the sale transaction might not occur at all, would not occur until the closing date (October 3, 2019) at the earliest, with an actual price not known until closer to the closing date. TURN proposed an alternative approach that would remove the resolution of this issue from the GRC, and use a memorandum account to preserve SDG&E’s ability to recover the reasonable costs associated with the transaction should it go forward. Two weeks after reply briefs were submitted in the GRC, SDG&E presented A.L. 3294-E, which proposed an alternative outcome that would have the utility contract with OMEC for capacity products over an approximately 5-year period rather than purchasing the plant. The Commission granted SDG&E’s advice letter request in Resolution E-4981, issued in February 2019. In the GRC, the Proposed Decision

Ex. 492 (Testimony of Kevin Woodruff), pp. 4-5

Proposed Decision, pp. 232-233

D.19-09-051, p. 244 and Finding of Fact 107 and Conclusion of Law 49

Verified

14


found that the issuance of Res. E-4981 made SDG&E’s acquisition of OMEC highly uncertain. It also found that including the costs in the GRC revenue requirement was not necessary to protect SDG&E’s cost recovery opportunity, and that reliance on a balancing account would achieve a more appropriate approach that would be more transparent and understandable to ratepayers. On that basis, the PD agreed in part with TURN and ORA’s position that the OMEC-related costs should be removed from the GRC.

SDG&E’s comments on the PD alerted the Commission to developments that resulted in OMEC having waived any further right to the “put” option that would have resulted in the utility’s purchase of the plant. The final decision modified the associated language in the PD and relied on those recent developments as the basis for removing the OMEC-related costs from the GRC forecast, thus eliminating the need for an associated balancing account.

(2) Generation O&M

TURN proposed several reductions to SDG&E’s forecast for electric generation O&M, some of which were adopted in D.19-09-051. As the Commission recounts in D.19-09-051, SDG&E agreed with two of TURN’s adjustments – removing $5,000 in chamber of commerce dues in Boulder City and $119,000 in non-recurring crane costs for Palomar. The Commission additionally agreed with TURN that SDG&E failed to

Ex. 494 (Testimony of William Perea Marcus), p. 59 (Palomar crane); p. 64 (Resource Planning Manager); p. 76 (Boulder City chamber dues)

D.19-09-051, pp. 244-245 (recounting SDG&E’s concessions)

D.19-09-051, p. 246 (re Resource Planning, “We agree with TURN that meeting GHG target needs should not be considered as incremental work … We also agree with TURN that the testimony only states that the position is being

Verified

15


demonstrate the need for an additional FTE for a Resource Planning Manager. Accordingly, the Commission reduced the utility’s forecast by $280,000 for Resource Planning.

added but does not clearly establish the work to be performed and that the work is incremental in nature.”)

Electric Distribution – SDG&E [“ElecDist”]

(1) 4kV Substation Replacement

TURN recommended that the Commission reduce SDG&E’s 2018-2019 forecast of $20 million for 4kV substation modernization by $12.751 million, commensurate with a slower pace of substation upgrades. TURN showed that SDG&E failed to provide persuasive data supporting its allegations of reliability or safety problems on its existing 4 kV substations and circuits. The Commission adopted TURN’s proposed reductions, agreeing with TURN that costs should be normalized over the rate case cycle and the replacement period should be extended to promote rate affordability.


D.19-09-051, p. 289

Verified

(2) Sulfur Hexafluoride Switches

TURN recommended that the Commission reduce SDG&E’s forecast for replacement of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) switches because the utility provided no valid rationale for pre-emptively removing SF6 switches that were only recently installed. TURN recommended that the utility instead monitor the switches and replace them if they are leaking. Because SDG&E did not track costs for this activity from 2012-2015, TURN recommended that the most recent year of recorded


D.19-09-051, p. 291

Verified

16


data, $3.1 million in 2017, be used as a forecast for 2018 and 2019, thus reducing SDG&E’s forecast by $22 million for 2018-2019. The Commission agreed with TURN “that switches that have remaining useful lives and no leaks might not need to be proactively replaced.” The Commission reduced SDG&E’s forecast by $7 million per year (instead of TURN’s $11 million) because of new regulatory requirements from CARB and EPA related to tracking of SF6 switches.

(3) Microgrid for Energy Resilience

TURN recommended that SDG&E’s proposed microgrids should be completely disallowed, resulting in a capital reduction of $13.810 million for 2018-2019. TURN explained that SDG&E failed to provide any cost effectiveness analysis to demonstrate that this project is a viable alternative to accomplish either its original objective of renewable integration, or its changed objective of providing backup power during wildfire outages. TURN explained that the project also appears duplicative of other storage and microgrid investments being made by SDG&E. The Commission agreed and denied the project.


D.19-09-051, pp. 294-295 (“The aim of the project is clear, but SDG&E’s rebuttal testimony does not sufficiently address the concerns raised by ORA and TURN that the project may be duplicative [sic] what other proposed projects will achieve and whether there are enough benefits to justify approval of the project.”)

Verified

Customer Service [“CustSvc”]

(1) Uncollectible Rate

TURN proposed that the Commission adopt a new mechanism for calculating the uncollectible rate for SDG&E and

Ex. 497 (Testimony of Hayley Goodson), p. 3

D.19-09-015, pp. 335-336 (SoCalGas), pp. 349-350 (SDG&E)

Verified

17


SoGalGas, based on a ten-year rolling average of historical uncollectible rates, starting with 2008-2017 for Test Year 2019, with adjustments to occur annually by Advice Letter. The Commission agreed with TURN but concluded that the first ten-year period should be 2007-2016.

(2) CS-Field Staff Manager - SoCalGas

TURN recommended a $158,000 reduction to SoCalGas’s forecast, which was based on a 2012-2016 average, because of declining costs since 2014. TURN proposed a 2014-2017 four-year average as a forecast, which SoCalGas argued was “arbitrary.” The Commission agreed with TURN’s analysis but adopted a three-year 2014-2016 average (noting that this was comparable to 2017 recorded), and which was almost identical to TURN’s forecast.

Ex. 494 (Marcus Testimony), pp. 7-8 (recommending a forecast of $1.357 million)

D.19-09-015, p. 317 (adopting a forecast of $1.356 million)

Verified

(3) CS-Office – Billing – SDG&E

TURN opposed SDG&E’s addition of 1 FTE for a new business systems analyst because this addition equates to a staffing increase of 33% to do 10% more work. TURN instead recommended funding for 0.4 FTE, a reduction of $55,000 to SDG&E’s forecast. The Commission agreed with TURN and reduced SDG&E’s forecast accordingly.

Ex. 494 (Marcus Testimony), p. 44

D.19-09-015, p. 345

Verified

(4) CS-Office - Remittance Processing – SDG&E


D.19-09-015, p. 346

Verified

18


TURN identified an accounting adjustment requiring a reduction to SDG&E’s forecast of $7,000 to prevent double escalation. SDG&E agreed to this adjustment, as the Commission recognized.

Fleet Services [“ShdSvcs”]

Ownership Costs – SDG&E and SoCalGas

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt Cal Advocates’ forecast based on 2017 recorded costs. TURN supplemented Cal Advocates’ showing with additional data and analysis, further demonstrating the unreasonableness of the utilities’ forecasts. TURN alternatively recommended that the Commission add additional funding to this base forecast for replacement of diesel vehicles under the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) requirements.

The Commission adopted both of these recommendations. For SoCalGas, this resulted in a forecast of $26.753 million, approximately $19 million less than the utility’s request. For SDG&E, this resulted in a forecast of $13.188 million, approximately $11 million less than SDG&E’s request.

Ex. 498 (Testimony of Garrick Jones), pp. 32-46

D.19-09-051, pp. 397-398 (SoCalGas)

D.19-09-051, pp. 413-414 (SDG&E)

Verified

Real Estate, Land Services, and Facilities [“ShdSvcs”]

(1) Shared Services – O&M - Facilities Operations

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt a reduced forecast for Facilities Operations related to the Rancho Bernardo


D.19-09-051, pp. 421-422

Verified

19


Data Center & Annex, to reflect reduced costs going forward. TURN recommended a 50% reduction, $379,000. The Commission agreed with TURN that the forecast should be reduced by 50% but calculated this reduction after accounting for actual costs in 2017, leaving a reduction of costs by $358,000.

(2) Shared Services – O&M - Corporate Center Maintenance

TURN recommended using a 2014-2017 four-year average instead of SDG&E’s three-year average for Corporate Center maintenance. As the Commission notes in D.19-09-051, SDG&E accepted TURN’s forecast because of “larger than originally projected variability in the 2017 actual costs.” The Commission approved TURN’s forecast of $2.220 million, a reduction of $442,000 to SDG&E’s request.

Ex. 498 (Testimony of Garrick Jones), p. 3

D.19-09-051, pp. 424-425

Verified

(3) SDG&E Capital Projects – Business Unit Expansion – Kearny, Ramona, and Mission Critical Facility

TURN agreed with Cal Advocates that the Commission should not authorize funding for the Mission Critical Facility Consolidation & Expansion project and the Kearny Master Plan because none of these projects would be in service in the test year. For the same reason, TURN also opposed funding for the Ramona Construction & Operation project. The Commission agreed that these projects should be considered in the next GRC, not this one, and removed all requested funding, amounting to more than $4


D.19-09-051, pp. 434-436

Verified

20


million from 2017-2019.

TURN also recommended that for broad strategies such as the Kearny Master Plan (and any similar plans), the Commission should direct the utilities to present the plan for review, and to demonstrate the reasonableness of the plan as a basis for utility planning and projects going forward. The Commission should also direct the utilities to demonstrate and quantify any purported ratepayer benefits from the plan or projects pursued thereunder. The Commission acknowledged that a more comprehensive review was necessary, explaining, “Because of the scope and complexity of these projects, we find that the projects need to be reviewed more thoroughly and that there is insufficient information to support a comprehensive review at this time.”

(4) SDG&E Capital Projects – Remodels and Reconfigurations - Network Operations Center and Emergency Operations Center

TURN recommended that the Commission disallow the amounts requested by SDG&E to remodel the Network Operations Center and the Emergency Operations Center because SDG&E failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the remodel project in light of the Mission Critical Facility Consolidation & Expansion project also under development. Because the Commission declined to approve the Mission Critical Facility Consolidation & Expansion project, the Commission explained that it also addressed “TURN’s concerns


D.19-09-051, p. 435

Verified

21


about the redundancy and necessity of” these specific projects.

(5) SoCalGas Capital Projects – NGV Refueling Stations

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt Cal Advocates’ forecast for 2018 and 2019 NGV refueling station capital, equal to 2017 recorded costs. TURN supplemented Cal Advocates’ showing with additional data and analysis, further demonstrating the unreasonableness of SoCalGas’s much higher forecast for 2018 and 2019. Although applying a different rationale, the Commission adopted the 2018 and 2019 forecasts proposed by TURN and Cal Advocates, thus reducing SoCalGas’s forecasts by $8.762 million in 2018 and $11.624 million in 2019.


D.19-09-051, p. 410

Verified

Administrative & General [“A&G”]

(1) Corporate Center – Cost Allocation Methodology

TURN recommended that the Commission reject the Multifactor Basic allocation of 76.2% proposed by SDG&E and SoCalGas, which was based on a trend line analysis, because prior trend-based forecasts have proven inaccurate. TURN instead recommended an allocation of 72.78%, calculated starting with 2018 (based on 2017 actuals), adding Oncor, removing SONGS and Aliso Canyon, and removing non-current receivables. In rebuttal testimony, the utilities proposed a revised allocation of

Ex. 494 (Marcus Testimony), pp. 66-69

TURN Opening Brief, pp. 218-219

D.19-09-015, p. 499

Verified

22


72.6% reflecting the Oncor acquisition. TURN accepted this revised allocation in its opening brief, noting the non-material difference between that and TURN’s allocation of 72.78%. The Commission adopted this agreed upon allocation of 72.6%.

(2) Insurance

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt TURN’s approach to allocating 50% of utility-related Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance costs to the utility and its shareholders, by first determining the amount that should be allocated to Sempra Energy’s non-utility operations, and then allocating the remainder consistent with its longstanding practice. The Commission agreed and adopted TURN’s position and corresponding calculation.


D.19-09-015, pp. 531-532

Verified

(3) Accounting and Finance/Legal/Regulatory Affairs/External Affairs

TURN recommended that the Commission remove from the authorized revenue requirement the amounts for miscellaneous dues and donations, sponsorships of charitable and civic events, and clothing and other gear, consistent with past Commission recognition that such activities are inappropriate for ratepayer funding. In response to TURN’s recommendations, SoCalGas removed the membership dues in dispute, while SDG&E removed all membership dues and donations disputed by TURN. The Commission declined to remove additional amounts for promotional clothing and gear.


D.19-09-015, p. 591 (SoCalGas); p. 596 (SDG&E)

Verified

23


However, the Commission agreed with TURN that ratepayers should not pay for the naming rights for the San Diego Transit system’s “SDG&E Sliver Line.”

Compensation and Benefits [“Comp & Bens”]

(1) Short-Term Incentive Compensation (ICP)

TURN recommended that the Commission disallow ratepayer funding for (1) Financial measures; (2) almost all Strategic Initiative measures; and (3) one SoCalGas ICP Operational measure, because these measures do not promote goals that clearly enhance utility operations and services from the perspective of ratepayers. TURN also demonstrated the fallacy of the utilities’ argument that all ICP costs should be ratepayer-funded simply on the basis that the total compensation is at-market.

The Commission rejected the utilities’ argument that ratepayers should fund ICP because it is part of their total compensation, which is around market. The Commission also agreed with TURN (and Cal Advocates) that ratepayers should not pay for ICP financial metrics because these metrics primarily benefit the utilities and shareholders. This disallowance reduced ratepayer funding for ICP by 10%.


D.19-09-051, pp. 542-544

Verified

(2) Special Recognition Awards - Employee Recognition Program

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt the 2015-2017 three-year average as the forecast for the Employee Recognition


D.19-09-051, pp. 541, 544-545

Verified

24


Program, instead of the utilities’ zero-based method, because recorded costs are significantly lower than the proposed amounts. The Commission found that TURN’s approach was “more reflective of projected costs” and adopted TURN’s forecast, reducing funding by $219,000 for SDG&E and $554,000 for SoCalGas.

(3) Other Benefit Programs - Retirement Activities and Special Events

TURN recommended that the Commission disallow funding for Retirement Activities and Special Events, and allow 50% of funding for Service Recognition, consistent with the Commission’s prior treatment of these costs. The Commission agreed with TURN (and Cal Advocates) that ratepayers should not fund Retirement Activities and Special Events, reducing SDG&E’s forecast by $67,00 and SoCalGas’s forecast by $712,000. The Commission did not adopt TURN’s recommendation regarding Service Recognition.


D.19-09-051, p. 554

Verified

(4) Retirement Benefits

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt a 50% reduction in ratepayer funding for the Nonqualified Retirement Savings Plan (RSP) and Supplemental Pension program costs for both utilities, consistent with the Commission’s prior recognition that both ratepayers and shareholders derive benefits from these plans, although the primary beneficiaries are utility executives and shareholders. The


D.19-09-051, pp. 553

Verified

25


Commission agreed with TURN and adopted TURN’s recommendation, thus reducing SDG&E’s forecast by $2.084 million and SoCalGas’s forecast by $2.031 million.

Post-Retirement Benefits [“Pensions”]

(1) Pensions Expense

TURN analyzed the historical contributions to Pension Funds made by SoCalGas and SDG&E and demonstrated that the two utilities used different funding strategies, resulting in a much greater shortfall for SoCalGas than SDG&E. TURN made the following recommendations regarding the Pension Expense:

TURN opposed the seven-year amortization of the pension “shortfall” due to its intergenerational inequity.

TURN recommended that the rate case Pension Expense amount be based on the GAAP Pensions Expense, thus obviating the need to amortize the shortfall separately, in order to promote intergenerational equity and transparency.

TURN’s primary recommendation reduced the test year Pension Expense by about $112 million for SoCalGas, and about $35 million for SDG&E.

Alternatively, TURN recommended that the “shortfall” be amortized over 15 years, rather than 7 years, based on the methodology proposed by Indicated Shippers, but accounting for the average age of retirement

Ex. 501 (Testimony of Jaime McGovern), pp. 8-18.

TURN Opening Brief, pp. 254-267.

D.19-09-051, p. 558.

Ex. 501 (Testimony of Jaime McGovern), p. 41.

TURN Opening Brief, p. 277.

D.19-09-051, pp. 560-561.

Verified

26


of participants.

The Commission rejected TURN’s primary recommendation, because it accepted the utilities’ argument that it would result in some “unfunded pension obligations.” However, the Commission agreed that a longer amortization period was warranted to reduce ratepayer impacts, and adopted a 14-year amortization period based on the average age of retirement of plan participants, which was consistent with TURN’s alternative recommendation.

Human Resources Department, Safety, Workers’ Compensation, & Long-Term Disability [“HR”]

(1) Safety, Wellness, & Disability

TURN recommended removing all funding for driver safety training programs because SoCalGas was unable to provide an estimate of benefits from these programs, despite piloting two driver safety programs in its last GRC cycle. TURN also pointed out that it is unreasonable to provide annual in-vehicle training to all of SoCalGas’s 4,500 employees, which includes many employees that spend most or all of their days in an office environment, or otherwise drive for work relatively little. The Commission shared TURN’s concern about the extent to which ratepayers would benefit from these programs. The Commission accordingly disallowed 50% of



D.19-09-051, pp. 572-573

Verified

27


the costs of these programs, as opposed to TURN’s 100% disallowance, for a combined reduction of $1.924 million.

(2) Labor Relations - Work Leveling System

TURN proposed a reduction of $110,000 to SoCalGas’s forecast to normalize the test year cost of a new work-leveling system. The Commission agreed with TURN “that it is more appropriate to treat the projected incremental cost of $170,000 for TY2019 as a non-recurring cost and spread the cost over the three years included in the GRC cycle.”



D.19-09-051, pp. 571-572

Verified

Depreciation [“Dep”]

(1) Depreciation Parameters

TURN recommended that the Commission leave the currently authorized depreciation parameters for each utility in place, and decline to adopt the changes SoCalGas and SDG&E proposed to the net salvage and average service life for each plant account. The Commission agreed with TURN that SoCalGas and SDG&E did not adequately demonstrate the reasonableness of their proposed changes to the current depreciation parameters and accordingly rejected their request to change them.

Ex. 503 (Finkelstein Testimony), pp. 3-11

D.19-09-015, pp. 622-623 (SoCalGas); p. 635 (SDG&E)

Verified

(2) Average Service Life for Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment

TURN recommended that the Commission adopt a 10-year Average Service Life (ASL) for the one SDG&E plant account for

Ex. 503 (Finkelstein Testimony), p. 11

D.19-09-015, pp. 625-626

Verified

28


which the Commission has not previously adopted an average service life (E398.20 – Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment), consistent with the study SDG&E cites in support of its position, rather than 5-year ASL SDG&E proposes. The Commission agreed with TURN and adopted a 10-year ASL for this account.

(3) SDG&E Generation Facilities Decommissioning

TURN proposed adjustments to SDG&E’s decommissioning costs for its generation facilities, based on a longer and more recent time series of scrap metal prices, removing contingencies from scrap metal prices, and reducing the contingency on project costs from 20% to 15%. The Commission found TURN’s methodology more reasonable and reduced SDG&E’s forecast by $3.011 million, as recommended by TURN.


D.19-09-015, p. 627

Verified

Taxes [“RO”]

(1) Income Taxes – SDG&E and SoCalGas

TURN recommended that the Commission use its discretion to order a shorter period for returning to ratepayers the excess Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (ADIT) associated with “unprotected” assets other than Cost of Removal (COR). TURN proposed that the Average Rate Assumption Method (ARAM) should be used for COR. The Commission agreed and adopted TURN’s approach for SoCalGas and SDG&E.


D.19-09-015, pp. 637-639 (SoCalGas); pp. 645-647 (SDG&E)

Verified

29


(2) Payroll Taxes – SDG&E and SoCalGas

TURN supported the 2019 payroll tax forecast of Cal Advocates, which was based on Cal Advocates’ lower forecast of the 2019 “maximum wage base” (which was the same wage base forecast for 2019 as included in the SSA’s 2018 Annual report a few months later). Although TURN did not address this issue in testimony, TURN provided additional support in briefing for adopting the 2019 wage base limitation calculated by Cal Advocates and included in the SSA’s 2018 Annual report. The Commission agreed with TURN (and Cal Advocates) that the SSA’s updated 2019 wage base limitation should be used to forecast payroll taxes.


D.19-09-015, pp. 630-632

Verified

Materials & Supplies [“RO”]

(1) TURN recommended that SoCalGas’s forecast of Materials & Supplies (M&S) should be escalated to 2019 from the average M&S balance for 2016 instead of the year-end balance. SoCalGas accepted TURN’s proposal in rebuttal testimony, and the Commission agreed that this is the appropriate methodology. The impact of TURN’s adjustment is to reduce the M&S calculation by approximately $835,000.


D.19-09-051, pp. 611-612

Verified

(2) TURN proposed two adjustments to SDG&E’s forecast of M&S: escalating to 2019 from the average M&S balance for 2016 instead of the year-end balance and excluding $30 million in LTSA equipment from


D.19-09-051, pp. 615-616

Verified

30


escalation. As the Commission explains, SDG&E accepted TURN’s adjustments, and the Commission agrees as well. These adjustments reduce the M&S calculation by $17.6 million.

Working Cash [“RO”]

(1) GHG Credit Revenue Lag – SDG&E

TURN proposed adjustments to SDG&E’s working cash calculations, including the treatment of the Greenhouse Gas Credit in calculating revenue lag. The Commission agreed with TURN on the Greenhouse Gas Credit, thus reducing SDG&E’s working cash forecast by $7.664 million.


D.19-09-015, p. 663

Verified

(2) Goods and Services Lag – SDG&E

SDG&E agreed with TURN’s proposal to increase Goods and Services lag by 0.66 days to more accurately account for payments made using credit cards, which decreased SDG&E’s working cash request by $1.7 million. The Commission recognized this concession by SDG&E.


D.19-09-015, p. 661

Verified

(3) Goods and Services Lag – SoCalGas

SoCalGas agreed with TURN’s proposal to increase Goods and Services lag by 0.26 days to remove data for rents, which decreased SoCalGas’s working cash request by $273,000. The Commission recognized this concession by SoCalGas.


D.19-09-015, p. 657

Verified

31


Post-Test Year Revenue Requirement Issues [“3AY”]

TURN (and SCGC) recommended that the Commission reject SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’s request for a four-year GRC cycle instead of the customary three-year term set forth in the Rate Case Plan. Other parties also opposed a four-year GRC cycle. TURN/SCGC pointed out that the Commission was already considering whether to revise the Rate Case Plan to include a third attrition year in Rulemaking (R.) 13-11-006, and suggested that R.13-11-006 was the most appropriate venue in which to consider changes to the GRC term because the Commission could consider the broad implications of such changes. TURN/SCGC urged the Commission to avoid a similar, foreseeable scheduling challenge as occurred with the overlapping SCE 2012 GRC and Sempra 2012 GRC by rejecting the Applicants’ request in this proceeding for a four-year GRC term. TURN/SCGC also addressed the purported benefits of authorizing a four-year cycle for SDG&E/SoCalGas now, demonstrating that such benefits were either illusory or could be achieved in other ways, as suggested by Energy Division Staff in its report in R.13-11-006.

The Commission agreed with TURN et al. that this issue should be addressed consistently for all major energy IOUs in R.13-11-006. For this reason, the Commission declined to adopt a third attrition year for SDG&E and SoCalGas, pending the Commission’s disposition of this issue in R.13-11-006.



D.19-09-051, pp. 27-30

Verified

32


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

Intervenor’s Assertion

CPUC Discussion

a. Was the Public Advocate’s Office of the Public Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) a party to the proceeding?2

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: TURN’s positions overlapped to varying extents with those taken by the Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates), who was called the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) during this proceeding, Small Business Utility Advocates (SBUA), National Diversity Coalition (NDC), Indicated Shippers (IS), the Federal Executive Agencies (FEA), the City of Lancaster, the Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE), the Office of the Safety Advocate (OSA), Sierra Club / Union of Concerned Scientists (Sierra Club/UCS), Protect Our Communities Foundation (POC), and the Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC).

TURN notes that other parties representing consumer interests were active in this proceeding, such as the Consumer Federation of California Foundation (CFCF), Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN), San Diego Consumers’ Action Network (SDCAN), but TURN’s issue coverage did not overlap with these parties.

In the RAMP proceedings, the Mussey Grade Road Alliance (MGRA) was also a party.

Verified

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication:

TURN’s work in a GRC is typically coordinated with other like-minded groups, and this case was no different. Our time records include a number of entries (most of which are coded as “Coord”) for efforts devoted to communicating with the other intervenors about matters such as procedural strategies and issue area allocation.

As is our regular practice in GRC-type proceedings, TURN closely coordinated withCal Advocates (then-called ORA) from the earliest stages of the GRC in order to avoid and minimize duplication. Avoiding duplication entirely with Cal Advocates is nearly impossible since the staff seeks to address nearly all issue areas covered by the utility application. Therefore, the coordination effort with Cal Advocates aims to minimize duplication, and to ensure that where such duplication occurs TURN’s witnesses are presenting distinct and unique arguments in support of the common or overlapping recommendations. As a result, the Commission ended up with a more robust record.

Noted

2 The Office of Ratepayer Advocates was renamed the Public Advocate’s Office of the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Senate Bill No. 854, which the Governor approved on June 27, 2018.

33


TURN also worked to coordinate with the other parties with whom we had common interests and/or overlapping positions to avoid undue duplication where possible. For instance, TURN coordinated closely with UCAN from the outset of this proceeding to divide issue coverage. This allowed TURN and UCAN to completely avoid any duplication and collectively cover a broader range of issues. TURN coordinated with the City of Long Beach on general issue coverage, as well as the Sierra Club/UCS on natural gas vehicle issues.

Furthermore, as TURN has done in several recent proceedings, TURN coordinated with SCGC on issues of shared interest to the two organizations, including the North-South Pipeline Project, PSEP, and SDG&E/SoCalGas’s request for a third attrition year. TURN and SCGC shared the costs for the consulting services of Ms. Catherine Yap, who submitted testimony jointly on behalf of TURN and SCGC. TURN and SCGC also prepared joint opening and reply briefs addressing the issues covered by Ms. Yap’s testimony. This coordination prevented duplication in the analysis by TURN and SCGC of these issue areas.

In the RAMP proceeding, TURN coordinated early on with ORA, OSA, and SCGC related to strategy and participation. Beyond this initial coordination, TURN was able to present a unique analysis distinct from other intervenors because of its extensive participation in the S-MAP proceeding and, in particular, its successful sponsorship (along with Indicated Shippers) of a competing risk mitigation assessment methodology that was adopted on an interim basis by the Commission in D.16-06-018. TURN’s successful effort in S-MAP was supported and enabled by two expert consultants, a mathematician and an economist, who allowed TURN’s understanding of risk methodologies to be both more comprehensive and more detailed than other intervenors who did not have the benefit of such expert consultation. Accordingly, TURN was able to address the issues raised by the utilities’ submissions at a uniquely technical and detailed level in the RAMP workshops and in comments on the RAMP reports.

In sum, the Commission should find that TURN's participation was efficientlycoordinated with the participation of other intervenors wherever possible, so as toavoid undue duplication and to ensure that any such duplication served tosupplement, complement, or contribute to the showing of the other intervenor. Andconsistent with such a finding, the Commission should determine that all of TURN’swork is compensable consistent with the conditions set forth in Section 1802.5.

C. Additional Comments on Part II: (use line reference # or letter as appropriate)

# Intervenor’s Comment CPUC Discussion

Compensation for Partial Success

The statutory definition of “substantial contribution” in Section 1802 of the PU Code states that a contribution results because the Commission “has adopted in whole or in part one or more factual

Noted

34


contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations presented by the customer.” The Commission has interpreted the “in whole or in part” provision, in conjunction with Section 1801.3, so as to effectuate the legislature’s intent to encourage effective and efficient intervenor participation. The Commission has established as a general proposition that when a party makes a substantial contribution in a multi-issue proceeding, it is entitled to compensation for time and expenses even if it does not prevail on some of the issues. See, for example, D.98-04-028 (awarding TURN full compensation in CTC proceeding, even though TURN did not prevail on all issues); D.98-08-016, pp. 6, 12 (awarding TURN full compensation in SoCalGas PBR proceeding); D.00-02-008, pp. 4-7, 10 (awarding TURN full compensation even though we unsuccessfully opposed settlement).

The standard for an award of intervenor compensation is whether TURN made a substantial contribution to the Commission’s decision, not whether TURN prevailed on a particular issue, or on every issue. For example, the Commission recognized that it “may benefit from an intervenor’s participation even where the Commission did not adopt any of the intervenor’s positions or recommendations.” D.08-04-004, p. 5-6 (in the review of SCE’s contract with Long Beach Generation, A.06-11-007). The Commission reached a similar conclusion in D.09-04-027, awarding intervenor compensation for TURN’s efforts in the SCE AMI proceeding (A.07-07-026) even on issues where TURN did not prevail, as TURN’s efforts “contributed to the inclusion of these issues in the Commission’s deliberation” and caused the Commission to “add more discussion on the issue, in part to address TURN’s comments.” D.09-04-027, p. 4. See, also, D.10-06-046, p. 5; D.02-07-030); D.00-07-015; D.98-11-014, p. 8.

In this proceeding, the Commission declined to adopt TURN’s recommendation that Moody’s housing start historical data and forecasts be used to forecast SDG&E’s gas and electric residential customers, instead of Global Insight’s forecasts. TURN showed that Global Insight significantly over-forecast housing starts for the 2014-2016 period used for SDG&E’s last GRC. See Ex. 490 (Borden Testimony), pp. 51-59; D.19-09-051, pp. 666-668 (SDG&E gas customers); pp. 668-670 (SDG&E electric customers). After weighing the evidence, the Commission concluded that that it was unnecessary to direct SDG&E to redo its electric customer forecast using only Moody’s data, as recommended by TURN, because “[i]t is not established that Moody’s forecast is certain to be accurate or that Global Insight’s forecast is certain to be inaccurate.” D.19-09-051, p. 669. The Commission likewise found it unnecessary under the circumstances to direct SDG&E to purchase the rights to use Moody’s data and redo the gas customer forecast using that data, despite the inaccuracies of Global Insight’s forecasts in the prior GRC period,

35


because “there will be times that a forecast will be incorrect.” D.19-09-051, p. 667. Although the Commission declined to adopt TURN’s recommendations, TURN submits that because of TURN’s participation – no other party challenged the utilities’ showing – the Commission had a more robust record upon which to base its determinations in this proceeding.

The Commission also declined to adopt TURN’s recommendation that SDG&E and SoCalGas account for their 2016 base year costs associated with the 18-week intensive Fueling Our Future (FOF) “Project Phase”, and remove such one-time costs from their forecast. See Ex. 504 (Testimony of Jennifer Dowdell), pp. 8-12; D.19-09-051, pp. 30-33. The Commission considered TURN’s arguments but ultimately disagreed with TURN that the FOF Project Phase activities were “one-time”, instead finding them similar to ongoing continuous improvement work at SDG&E and SoCalGas. The Commission also accepted the utilities’ explanation that routine work was completed, without any incremental impact on labor costs. (D.19-09-051, p. 33). Yet without TURN’s analysis of FOF, the Commission would not have had the same record upon which to base its determinations in this proceeding.

Given the extent of TURN’s substantial contribution to D.19-09-051 chronicled above, as well as TURN’s contributions to the record regarding SDG&E’s customer forecasts and FOF, TURN suggests that it is entirely appropriate for the Commission to find that all of the time spent by TURN’s staff on SDG&E’s customer forecasts and by TURN’s staff and outside consultant on FOF issues should be fully compensable, as these efforts contributed to the Commission’s deliberations on these issues.

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

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

CPUC Discussiona. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:

TURN’s request for intervenor compensation seeks an award of approximately $1.1 million as the reasonable cost of our participation in this proceeding, including approximately 50 hours of work in the RAMP proceedings, I.16-10-015 et al.. In light of the scope and quality of TURN’s work, and the benefits achieved through TURN’s participation in the proceeding, the Commission should have little trouble concluding that the amount requested is reasonable.

Noted

36


TURN’s efforts in this proceeding, taken together with the efforts of the other active intervenors, will save ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the 2019 GRC cycle as compared to SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’s requests. The reduction to SDG&E’s test year request alone -- $111 million – will produce $333 million in savings through 2021, before the attrition year reductions are accounted for. Similarly, SoCalGas’s ratepayers will enjoy nearly $500 million in savings through 2021 -- $166 million in the test year, carried forward – before accounting for the additional attrition year reductions. As described above in the substantial contribution section, TURN can take credit for a significant portion of these reductions. Indeed, TURN’s work on any number of specific issues (for example, disallowance of $14 million for SDG&E’s Microgrid for Energy Resilience projects; disallowance of $21 million for SoCalGas for the North-South Pipeline Project; $30 million reduction for SDG&E’s and SoCalGas’s fleet ownership costs) achieved savings that dwarfed the total costs for which TURN seeks recovery.

The total amount of TURN’s request is also reasonable in light of recent awards of compensation to TURN for work in the PG&E 2014 GRC, the SCE 2015 GRC, and the PG&E 2017 GRC. The Commission in D.15-08-023 awarded TURN approximately $1.5 million in the PG&E 2014 GRC, and in D.16-04-011, approximately $1.6 million in the SCE 2015 GRC. More recently, in D.18-04-011, the Commission awarded TURN approximately $1.6 million for TURN’s work in the PG&E 2017 GRC, which was the subject of a settlement that resolved nearly all disputed issues in the proceeding.

For all of these reasons, the Commission should find that TURN's efforts have been productive.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

TURN seeks compensation for approximately 3,300 hours of time devoted to this proceeding by our staff attorneys, staff expert, and outside consultants, as well as approximately 50 hours devoted to the RAMP proceedings that preceded this GRC. The collective efforts of this team resulted in ten volumes of testimony addressing an array of issues, including gas distribution and transmission, electric distribution, electric generation, customer service, HR, A&G, fleet and real estate, tax, working cash and other rate base issues, depreciation, and the utilities’ request for a four-year GRC cycle. As described more fully in the substantial contribution section above, the Commission’s decision in D.19-09-051 reflects a substantial number of the recommendations presented by TURN. In the sections that follow, TURN describes the contributions of members of our team. In light of our substantial contribution described in Section II above, TURN submits that the Commission should find that the hours incurred were reasonable.

1. TURN Attorneys and Staff Expert

TURN Staff Attorney Hayley Goodson served as TURN’s lead and coordinating attorney throughout this proceeding. She was also responsible for several issue categories for purposes of testimony review, including compensation, benefits, and other HR issues, customer service, customer forecasts, Fueling Our Future,

Noted

37


and the GRC cycle length, and addressed most but not all of these in the hearing room and briefing. Ms. Goodson additionally prepared and sponsored testimony addressing uncollectibles (Ex. 497, TURN-04). Finally, she led TURN’s participation in initial settlement negotiations, which were ultimately unfruitful. TURN seeks compensation for approximately 580 of her hours here, or the equivalent of approximately 14 1/2 weeks of full-time work.

Three other TURN staff attorneys played substantial roles in the development and presentation of TURN’s positions in this GRC. TURN General Counsel Robert Finkelstein served in the dual attorney/witness role. He sponsored testimony on depreciation, the Morongo Rights-of-Way balancing and memorandum accounts, and certain tax issues (Ex. 503, TURN-07). He additionally served as TURN’s attorney for energy supply issues, certain electric distribution issues, A&G, fleet and corporate real estate, working cash, rate base, and tax issues. TURN Staff Attorney Marcel Hawiger also served in the dual attorney/witness role. Mr. Hawiger sponsored testimony on gas distribution issues (Ex. 505, TURN-09). He also covered gas T&D issues, PSEP, electric distribution issues, and pensions as TURN’s attorney. TURN Staff Attorney Elise Torres covered compensation, benefits, and other HR issues before and after her parental leave during part of 2018. During her absence, Ms. Goodson covered these issues.

TURN’s request also includes a small number of hours for Thomas Long, TURN’s Legal Director, who provided occasional input on specific substantive issues and strategy. Mr. Long also served as TURN’s attorney in the RAMP proceedings, where he incurred approximately 50 hours of work, primarily in 2016 and 2017.

Eric Borden is TURN’s in-house energy analyst who joined TURN in February 2015. Prior to TURN, Mr. Borden worked as a consultant in energy and finance for approximately seven years. In this proceeding, Mr. Borden conducted discovery and analysis, and prepared testimony on electric distribution, certain gas T&D topics, customer forecasts, and certain cash working capital issues.

TURN submits that our recorded attorney and in-house expert hours in this proceeding are reasonable, both as described above and as demonstrated in the wide-ranging substantial contribution TURN made in this proceeding. Therefore, TURN seeks compensation for all of the hours recorded by our staff members and included in this request.

2. TURN Outside Consultants

Garrick Jones, InfraSMART Energy, LLC

TURN retained the expert services of Garrick Jones of InfraSMART Energy, LLC, formerly of JBS Energy. Mr. Jones assisted TURN with discovery and sponsored testimony on a number of issues, including corporate real estate and facilities, fleet, compensation and benefits, and other HR issues.

William Perea Marcus, MCPM Economics

38


TURN retained the expert services of William Perea Marcus of MCPM Economics, formally of JBS Energy. Mr. Marcus assisted TURN with discovery and sponsored testimony on an array of issues, including customer service, electric generation (other than the Otay Mesa Energy Center), A&G issues and accounting adjustments, tax, fossil powerplant decommissioning, materials and supplies, and working cash. Mr. Marcus also jointly sponsored a very limited section of the testimony of Garrick Jones related to incentive compensation.

Kevin Woodruff

TURN retained the services of Kevin Woodruff to analyze issues related to OMEC. TURN has included in this request the hours recorded by Mr. Woodruff and TURN attorney Robert Finkelstein for activities associated with SDG&E A.L. 3294-E and the resulting Resolution E-4981, which pertained to OMEC.

SDG&E’s Advice Letter was submitted during the course of its GRC proceeding, and proposed a resolution of disputed GRC issues. The Proposed Decision in the GRC would have tied the resolution of the OMEC-related issues based in large part on the fact that Resolution E-4981 further supported TURN’s recommendation to remove the costs from the GRC. The final decision relied on further information SDG&E provided regarding the status of the changed approach described in Resolution E-4981.3 And it was not until the final decision of the GRC that the Commission and interested parties had a clear sense of how the matter would be ultimately resolved, given the post-reply brief change in SDG&E position. It was not until after the Proposed Decision had issued that SDG&E notified the parties that the “put” option that drove its litigation had been revoked.4

TURN submits that under these circumstances, it is appropriate to include in this request all hours devoted to resolving the OMEC-related issues raised in SDG&E’s application. This includes not only the hours recorded in the GRC itself, but also the hours devoted to addressing those issues in responding to the Advice Letter and resolution presented and decided during the pendency of the GRC, and referenced in the GRC’s final decision.

Jennifer Dowdell

TURN retained the expert services of Jennifer Dowdell to assist TURN in reviewing the utilities’ applications and determining where testimony might be appropriate. Ms. Dowdell initially reviewed the utilities’ forecasts for certain A&G cost centers, Aliso Canyon accounting adjustments required by the Commission, and Fueling Our Future (FOF) proposals. As part of this review, she assisted TURN with discovery on the latter two issue areas. Ultimately, TURN and Ms. Dowdell determined that TURN should further investigate FOF but not the other issue areas she reviewed. Accordingly, Ms. Dowdell prepared testimony addressing FOF.

3 See the OMEC discussion in the Substantial Contribution section, above.4 D.19-09-051, p. 244.

39


Jaime McGovern

TURN retained the expert services of Dr. Jaime McGovern to analyze issues related to pension fund expenses. The amount necessary to adequately fund pensions is a technical issue that requires an understanding of federal tax laws and GAAP accounting. Dr. McGovern is an economist with approximately three years of academic teaching experience and six years of experience working as a utility analyst, first for the Oregon Public Utility Commission and later for the Citizens’ Utility Board of Oregon. Dr. McGovern thus has direct experience in utility regulation and ratemaking, and was qualified to evaluate the nature of pension obligations and funding strategies. Dr. McGovern’s full statement of qualifications is in the record as Attachment 1 to her testimony, Exhibit 501.

Dr. McGovern devoted approximately 235 hours to this case. This significant amount of time was necessary because Dr. McGovern evaluated the historical pension spending practices and accounting for both SDG&E and SCG in order to adequately explain the causes of the shortfall and determine a sufficient and reasonable path for future funding. No party has apparently addressed or challenged the historical pension fund methods used by the utilities, which may partly explain the reason for the significant current shortfall. Dr. McGovern analyzed the historical funding methods, evaluated the causes of the shortfall, and tested alternative strategies to fund the Pension Funds while enhancing intergenerational equity.

While the Commission did not adopt Dr. McGovern’s primary recommendation, TURN believes that her testimony assisted in the Commission’s deliberations and supported the Commission’s decision to require a longer amortization period for the shortfall than requested by the utilities.

Catherine Yap, Barkovich & Yap

As explained above, TURN retained the expert consulting services of Catherine Yap of Barkovich & Yap. Ms. Yap served as an expert witness on behalf of both TURN and SCGC in this proceeding. Ms. Yap conducted discovery and sponsored prepared joint testimony on the North-South Pipeline Project, PSEP, and SDG&E/SoCalGas’s request for a third attrition year. Through this coordination of work with SCGC, TURN was able to address a broader range of issues in the proceeding than would have been the case without this arrangement.

TURN and SCGC agreed that for this proceeding, Ms. Yap would invoice TURN for the full number of hours she devoted to work on the case, with TURN responsible for payment of 50% of the invoiced amount. Consistent with this cost-sharing arrangement, TURN’s claim presents the full number of hours billed by Ms. Yap, as well as an adjustment removing 50% of the costs for time billed, consistent with TURN’s actual responsibility for paying Ms. Yap.

Other Consultants

This request includes 1.0 hour of consulting services provided by expert Richard Kuprewicz of Accufacts Inc. in support of TURN’s gas distribution testimony. It

40


also includes 1.5 hours of expert legal services provided by Michel Florio in support of TURN’s analysis of the Proposed Decision’s treatment of PSEP issues.

3. Other Issues

Intervenor Compensation-Related Time

TURN is requesting compensation for 26.5 hours devoted to compensation-related matters in this GRC, the largest share of which is the 25.0 hours associated with Ms. Goodson’s preparation of this request for compensation. Given her extensive knowledge of all aspects of this proceeding, she was the most efficient choice to prepare this request. This request also include 0.5 hours of Mr. Long’s time in 2017, when he prepared TURN’s NOI in the RAMP proceedings.

TURN’s request for compensation for 25 hours for preparation of this claim falls well within the range of hours found reasonable by the Commission in decisions addressing TURN’s intervenor compensation requests in recent GRCs. See D.13-08-022 (SCE 2012 GRC), awarding compensation for 28.25 hours for claim preparation; D.14-05-015 (Sempra Utilities 2012 GRC), awarding compensation for 24.5 hours for claim preparation; D.15-08-023 (PG&E 2014 GRC), awarding compensation for 28.5 hours for claim preparation; D.16-04-011 (SCE 2015 GRC), awarding compensation for 21.25 hours for claim preparation; D.16-11-004 (Sempra 2016 GRC), awarding compensation for 20 hours for claim preparation; and D.19-02-019 (PG&E 2017 GRC), awarding compensation for 25 hours for claim preparation.

Travel Time and Costs

TURN’s request includes time (5.5 hours) and direct costs (airfare) associated with Jaime McGovern’s travel from her home and office in Oregon to the Commission to appear in the evidentiary hearings in this proceeding.

c. Allocation of hours by issue:

TURN has allocated all of our attorney and consultant time by issue area or activity, as evident on our attached timesheets. The following codes relate to specific substantive issue and activity areas addressed by TURN in this proceeding, as well as general activities that are part of nearly all CPUC proceedings, such as tasks associated with general participation, general hearing activities, and work undertaken after the Proposed Decision issues.

Code Description Allocation of Time

Hours

# Work pertaining to substantive issues but not specific to any one issue area addressed by TURN

7.21% 242.60

3AY Work related to SDG&E and SoCalGas's request for a third attrition year in this GRC cycle

0.88% 29.75

Noted

41


A&G Work related to Administrative and General issues

1.20% 40.25

Comp & Bens

Work related to Compensation and Benefits 8.52% 286.35

Coord Work related to coordinating with other intervenors

0.63% 21.25

CustGro Work related to Customer Forecasts 1.68% 56.58CustSvc Work related to Customer Service 6.68% 224.50Dep Work related to Depreciation 4.03% 135.50ElecDist Work related to Electric Distribution 6.98% 234.75FOF Work related to Fueling Our Future 3.43% 115.25GasDist Work related to Gas Distribution 2.46% 82.75GasT Work related to Gas Transmission 3.82% 128.33Gen Work related to Energy Supply 3.09% 104.00GH Work related to general hearing

participation1.77% 59.58

GP The work in this category includes activities associated with general participation in this proceeding, such as the initial review of the application and testimony, preparing a protest, attending the PHC, reading ALJ procedural rulings, and reading parties' pleadings as necessary to determine whether TURN should address the issues raised.

4.55% 152.92

HR Work related to Human Resources issues (other than Compensation and Benefits and Post-Retirement Benefits)

4.10% 137.93

JCE Work related to the presentation of TURN's positions in the Joint Comparison Exhibit

0.57% 19.00

LUAF Work related to Lost and Unaccounted For Gas

0.27% 9.00

PD Work related to the Proposed Decision which preceded D.19-09-051, where such work pertained to multiple issue areas

2.85% 95.75

Pensions Work related to post-retirement benefits 10.62% 357.26PSEP Work related to the Pipeline Safety

Enhancement Plan7.72% 259.75

RAMP Work related to I.16-10-015 and I.16-10-016, the RAMP proceedings that preceded this GRC

1.49% 50.25

RO Work related to results of operations issues, such as rate base, tax, working cash, customer deposits and other technical and accounting issues (with the exception of depreciation)

5.04% 169.54

Sett Work related to settlement negotiations 0.90% 30.25ShdSvcs Work related to Shared Services, including

Fleet, Facilities, and Real Estate8.54% 287.10

Travel Travel time 0.16% 5.50

42


Comp Intervenor Compensation: work preparing TURN's NOI and Request for Compensation

0.80% 27.00

TOTAL 100.00% 3362.69

Please also see Attachment 4, which presents an allocation of TURN’s time by person, issue, and year.

TURN submits that this information should suffice to address the allocation requirement under the Commission’s rules. Should the Commission wish to see additional or different information on this point, TURN requests that the Commission so inform TURN and provide a reasonable opportunity for TURN to supplement this showing accordingly.

B. Specific Claim:*CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES

Item Year Hours Rate $Basis for

Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $

Robert Finkelstein, TURN General Counsel

2017 18.00 $520.00 D.17-11-032 $9,360.00 18.00 $520.00 $9,360.00


2018 572.75 $530.00 D.18-11-043 $303,557.50 572.75 $530.00 $303,557.50


2019 49.75 $540.00 D.19-11-015 $26,865.00 49.75 $540.00 $26,865.00

Hayley Goodson,

TURN Staff Attorney

2017 49.25 $405.00 D.18-01-020 $19,946.25 49.25 $405.00 $19,946.25

Hayley Goodson,

TURN Staff Attorney

2018 459.00 $435.00 D.18-04-020 $199,665.00 459.00 $435.00 $199,665.00

Hayley Goodson,

TURN Staff Attorney

2019 42.25 $445.00 D.19-11-009 $18,801.25 42.25 $445.00 $18,801.25

43


Marcel Hawiger, TURN Staff Attorney

2017 9.25 $425.00 D.17-11-032 $3,931.25 9.25 $425.00 $3,931.25


2018 301.50 $435.00 D.18-06-023 $131,152.50 301.50 $435.00 $131,152.50


2019 20.25 $445.00 D.19-11-011 $9,011.25 20.25 $445.00 $9,011.25

Thomas J. Long, TURN Legal Director

2016 10.25 $575.00 D.16-11-004 $5,893.75 10.25 $575.00 $5,893.75


2017 38.50 $585.00 D.17-11-029 $22,522.50 38.50 $585.00 $22,522.50


2018 4.25 $600.00 D.18-05-036 $2,550.00 4.25 $600.00 $2,550.00


2019 0.25 $615.00 D.19-11-015 $153.75 .25 $615.00 $153.75

Elise Torres, TURN Staff Attorney

2017 2.00 $245.00 D.18-11-043 $490.00 2.00 $245.00 $490.00


2018 152.25 $315.00 D.18-11-043 $47,958.75 152.25 $315.00 $47,958.75


2019 19.25 $340.00 Res. ALJ-357 (2.35% 2019 COLA), plus 1st 5% step increase in 5-7 year tier

$6,545.00 19.25 $340.00[1]

$6,545.00

Eric Borden, TURN Analyst

2017 27.75 $205.00 D.18-07-022 $5,688.75 27.75 $205.00 $5,688.75


2018 268.01 $210.00 D.18-11-043 $56,282.10 268.01 $210.00 $56,282.10


2019 16.75 $215.00 Res. ALJ-357 (2.35% 2019 COLA)

$3,601.25 16.75 $215.00[2]

$3,601.25

Jennifer Dowdell, J. K. Dowdell

2018 96.75 $160.00 See Comment #1

$15,480.00 96.75 $160.00[3]

$15,480.00

44


Consulting, LLC

Michel P. Florio,TURN Consultant

2019 1.50 $600.00 See Comment #2

$900.00 1.50 $600.00[4]

$900.00

Garrick Jones, InfraSMART Energy, Inc.

2018 492.74 $205.00 D.18-11-043 (authorizing a 2017 rate of $200); Res. ALJ-352 (2.3 % 2018 COLA)

$101,011.70 492.74 $205.00[5]

$101,011.70

Richard Kuprewicz,Accufacts

2018 1.00 $200.00 See Comment #3

$200.00 1.00 $200.00[6]

$200.00

William Perea MarcusMCPM Economics

2017 4.67 $280.00 D.19-02-019 $1,307.60 4.67 $280.00 $1,307.60

William Perea MarcusMCPM Economics

2018 145.84 $290.00 D.19-11-011 $42,293.60 $285.00[7]

$42,293.60

Jaime McGovern, QED Power Consulting

2017 10.75 $200.00 See Comment #4

$2,150.00 10.75 $200.00[8]

$2,150.00


2018 215.68 $200.00 Same as 2017 rate

$43,136.00 215.68 $200.00 $43,136.00


2019 3.00 $200.00 Same as 2017 rate

$600.00 3.00 $200.00 $600.00

Kevin Woodruff, Woodruff Expert Services

2018 36.00 $265.00 D.18-07-022 $9,540.00 36.00 $265.00 $9,540.00

Kevin Woodruff, Woodruff Expert Services

2019 2.00 $270.00 Res. ALJ-357 (2.35% 2019 COLA)

$540.00 2.00 $270.00[9]

$540.00

Catherine YapTURN Consultant

2017 2.50 $280.00 D.16-04-011 (2015 rate)

$700.00 2.50 $280.00 $700.00

45


Catherine Yap - adjustment per TURN 50% share of costs

2017 See Comment #6

-$350.00 ($350.00)[11]


2018 248.75 $295.00 See Comment #5

$73,381.25 248.75 $295.00[10]

$73,381.25


2018 See Comment #6

-$36,690.63 ($36,690.63)[11]


2019 7.75 $295.00 Same as 2018 rate

$2,286.25 7.75 $295.00 $2,286.25


2019 See Comment #6

-$1,143.13 ($1,143.13)[11]

Subtotal: $1,129,318.50 Subtotal: $1,129,318.50

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

Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate*

Total $ Hours Rate Total $


2018 5.50 $100.00

Travel - Half of 2018 requested rate

$550.00 5.50 $100.00 $550.00

Subtotal: $550.00 Subtotal: $550.00

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

Rate*Total $ Hours Rate Total $

Thomas Long 2017 0.5 $292.50 ½ of 2017 hourly rate (D.17-11-029)

$146.25 0.50 $292.50 $146.25

Hayley Goodson 2018 1.50 $217.50 1/2 of 2018 hourly rate (D.18-04-020)

$326.25 1.50 $217.50 $326.25

46


Hayley Goodson 2019 25.00 $222.50 1/2 of 2019 hourly rate (D.19-11-009)

$5,562.50 25.00 $222.50 $5,562.50

Subtotal: $6,035.00 Subtotal: $6,035.00

COSTS

# Item Detail Amount Amount

1. Consultant Travel

Consultant airfare for travel to evidentiary hearing

$637.96 $637.96

2. Phone Phone expenses relating to proceeding A.17-10-007 et al.

$60.86 $60.86

3. Lexis Legal Research

Legal research costs associated with TURN's participation in A.17-10-007 et al.

$499.01 $499.01

4. Photocopies Copies of TURN filings and hearing exhibits related to A.17-10-007 et al.

$799.60 $799.60

5. Postage and Federal Express

Mailing costs associated with A.17-10-007 et al.

$134.13 $134.13

6. Photocopies Copies of TURN filings related to I.16-10-015 et al.

$8.50 $8.50

7. Postage Mailing costs associated with I.16-10-015 et al.

$6.60 $6.60

Subtotal: $2,146.66 Subtotal: $2,146.66

TOTAL REQUEST: $1,138,050.16 TOTAL AWARD: $1,138,050.16

*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

47


Attorney Date Admitted to CA BAR5

Member Number Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)If “Yes”, attach explanation

Robert Finkelstein June 1990 146391 No

Hayley Goodson December 2003 228535 No

Marcel Hawiger January 1998 194244 No

Thomas Long December 1986 124776 No

Elise Torres December 2011 280443 No

Michel Florio November 1978 83425 No

C. Attachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:(Intervenor completes; attachments not attached to final Decision)

Attachment or Comment

#

Description/Comment

Attachment 1 Certificate of Service

Attachment 2 Timesheets for TURN’s Attorneys and Experts (separated into GRC hours and RAMP hours)

Attachment 3 TURN Direct Expenses Associated with D.19-09-051 (separated into GRC expenses and RAMP expenses)

Attachment 4 TURN Hours Allocated by Issue

Attachment 5 Resume for Jennifer Dowdell

Attachment 6 Resume for Jaime McGovern

Comment #1 Hourly Rate for Jennifer Dowdell, J.K. Dowdell Consulting – 2018

TURN requests an hourly rate of $160 for expert consultant Jennifer Dowdell in 2018. This the introductory, discounted rate charged by Ms. Dowdell to TURN for new consulting work, which is more than justified by her extensive experience.

Jennifer Dowdell has over 30 years of experience in regulated utilities, independent power, financial services, and accounting. Ms. Dowdell has held positions in engineering, corporate communications, investment research, merchant banking, project finance, venture capital, and accounting operations at leading corporations including Duff & Phelps Investment Research, Sanwa Bank, and Gilead Sciences. Ms. Dowdell’s specific utility experience includes four years in design engineering and environmental compliance at Exelon Corporation, and four years developing independent power projects in California for Calpine Corporation. For 13 years, Ms. Dowdell worked for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in a variety of consulting and employee roles, including six years at the leadership/director-level. Her work included strategic planning, regulatory relations, and managing functions in investor relations and

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

48

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


payment services accounting. During her tenure at PG&E, Ms. Dowdell participated in multiple GRCs and Cost of Capitals cases as well as many other policy proceedings where she developed regulatory strategy, wrote and sponsored testimony, and engaged in regulatory advocacy.

Ms. Dowdell received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Purdue University, and an MBA in Economics and Finance from The University of Chicago, Booth Graduate School of Business. She has a Graduate Certificate in Accountancy from Golden Gate University, and is a California-licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Ms. Dowdell is also a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA), and holds both FINRA Series 7 and Series 66 licenses. Ms. Dowdell is a member of CalCPA. Her current resume is included in Attachment 5.

The requested 2018 rate of $160 is below the bottom of the range for experts with 13+ years of experience provided in Resolution ALJ-352 ($180-$445). TURN asks that the Commission authorize it solely for the purpose of calculating TURN’s award of intervenor compensation in this proceeding, without prejudice to the Commission’s consideration of hourly rates for Ms. Dowdell in years after 2018.

Following Ms. Dowdell’s consulting work for TURN in this proceeding, Ms. Dowdell joined TURN’s staff in 2019. Her resume provided in Attachment 5 reflects this current employment. In September 2019, TURN filed a request for intervenor compensation in R.19-01-006, wherein TURN requested a 2019 hourly rate of $275 for Ms. Dowdell’s work as a member of TURN’s staff. That request for intervenor compensation is still pending. As TURN explained there, a rate of $275 is fully justified by Ms. Dowdell’s extensive experience and is comparable to the rates recently adopted by the Commission for other experts with extensive experience in the utility industry.

Comment #2 Hourly Rate for Michel Florio - 2019

TURN requests an hourly rate of $600 for expert attorney consultant Michel Florio in 2019. This rate is the rate changed by Mr. Florio to TURN in 2019.

The Commission last authorized an hourly rate for Mr. Florio in 2011 of $535 (D.13-08-021). Escalating that rate by the annual authorized COLAs of 2.2% for 2012 (Res. ALJ-281), 2% for 2013 (Res. ALJ-287), 2.58% for 2014 (Res. ALJ-303, 1.28% for 2016 (Res. ALJ-329), 2.14% for 2017 (Res. ALJ-345), 2.30% for 2018 (Res. ALJ-352), and 2.35% for 2019 (Res. AJ-357) produces a rate of $615, when rounded to the nearest $5 increment, which is higher than the rate requested by TURN for Mr. Florio’s work in 2019.

Comment #3 Hourly Rate for Richard Kuprewicz, Accufacts Inc. - 2018

TURN requests an hourly rate of $200 for expert consultant Richard Kuprewicz of Accufacts Inc. in 2018. This is the actual rate charged by Mr. Kuprewicz to TURN.

In D.13-09-022, issued in R.11-02-019, the Commission approved an hourly rate of $175 for Mr. Kuprewicz’s work in 2011 and 2012. The Commission has not authorized a more recent rate for him.

Escalating Mr. Kuprewicz’s authorized rate for 2011 by the annual authorized COLAs

49


of 2.2% for 2012 (Res. ALJ-281), 2% for 2013 (Res. ALJ-287), 2.58% for 2014 (Res. ALJ-303, 1.28% for 2016 (Res. ALJ-329), 2.14% for 2017 (Res. ALJ-345), and 2.30% for 2018 (Res. ALJ-352) produces a rate of $197. When a 5% step increase – the first requested for Mr. Kuprewicz – is also applied, the resulting rate for 2018 is $207. This is higher than the $200 rate requested by TURN.

Comment #4 Hourly Rates for Jaime McGovern, QED Power Consulting – 2017, 2018, 2019

The Commission has not previously adopted an hourly rate for Dr. McGovern. TURN requests that the Commission authorize an hourly rate of $200 for Dr. McGovern, which is the actual rate billed by Dr. McGovern for her work in this proceeding in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

The requested rate is entirely reasonable given Dr. McGovern’s experience and education. In 2018, Dr. McGovern had at least nine years of relevant professional experience, of which six was directly as a utility analyst for the Oregon Public Utility Commission and the Oregon CUB. Her resume is provided in Attachment 6.

Resolution ALJ-352 indicates that the reasonable hourly rate in 2018 for an expert with 0-6 years of experience is between $150 and $215, while the range for an expert with 7-12 years of experience is $180 to $300. The requested hourly rate is within both of these ranges, and is at the low end of the 7-12 years of experience range.

The requested rate appears to be within the range of hourly rates for experts with Dr. McGovern’s education and experience that the Commission has previously authorized. For example, for 2017 and 2018 the Commission authorized hourly rates of $210 for Ms. Borgeson of NRDC (D.18-10-016), $365 for Dr. Fine of EDF (D.18-06-025), $210 for Mr. Borden of TURN (D.18-11-043), $315 for Mr. Baak of Vote Solar (D.17-04-030), and $315 for Mr. White of the Clean Coalition (D.18-03-010). While TURN has not researched the full bios of each of these witnesses, TURN believes that Dr. McGovern’s level of education meets or exceeds that of all of these other experts. (TURN believes only Dr. Fine has a similar level of academic education.) Some of the other witnesses likely have more years of experience by 2018, accounting for the higher hourly rates, but not all of their experience was directly related to utility regulation and ratemaking. TURN thus suggests that $200 is actually on the low end of the reasonable hourly range, and reflects Dr. McGovern’s billing rate for consumer advocate clients.

TURN reserves the right to request a higher rate for Dr. McGovern in 2019 in a future request for compensation, should Dr. McGovern increase her billing rate for work in other proceedings.

Comment #5 Hourly Rates for Catherine Yap, Barkovich & Yap – 2017, 2018, 2019

TURN requests an hourly rate of $280 for work by expert consultant Catherine Yap of Barkovich & Yap in 2017. The Commission previously authorized this rate in D.16-04-011 for Ms. Yap’s work in 2015.

50


For 2018 and 2019, TURN requests an hourly rate of $295 for Ms. Yap’s work. This is the rate charged by Ms. Yap starting in January 2018. This increase is equivalent to escalating her 2015 hourly rate by the three COLA adjustments adopted for 2016 (1.28% in Resolution ALJ-329), 2017 (2.14% in Resolution ALJ-345) and 2018 (2.3% in Resolution ALJ-352). Applying these increases to the $280 hourly rate authorized for 2015 results in an hourly rate of $295 (rounded down to the nearest $5).

Therefore, the Commission should find reasonable the requested rate of $295 for 2018. TURN used the same rate for the minimal amount of work by Ms. Yap for 2019, as that was the rate charged by Ms. Yap.

TURN reserves the right to request a higher rate for Ms. Yap in 2019 in a future request for compensation, should Ms. Yap increase her billing rate.

Comment #6 Adjustment to Claimed Costs for Ms. Yap’s Work in 2017, 2018, and 2019

As explained above, TURN shared the expert consulting services of Catherine Yap with SCGC in this proceeding. TURN and SCGC agreed that Ms. Yap would invoice TURN for the full number of hours she devoted to work on the case, with TURN responsible for payment of 50% of the invoiced amount. Consistent with this cost-sharing arrangement, TURN’s claim presents the full number of hours billed by Ms. Yap, as well as an adjustment removing 50% of the costs for time billed, consistent with TURN’s actual responsibility for paying Ms. Yap.

TURN is using this approach to ensuring that TURN claims only the actual costs TURN incurred for Ms. Yap’s services to promote transparency and avoid confusion regarding the number of hours of work conducted by Ms. Yap, as well as her full hourly rate.

TURN has previously taken different approaches to reflecting similar cost-sharing arrangements between TURN and SCGC in other proceedings. In TURN’s request for compensation in A.17-03-021, TURN claimed 50% of the hours invoiced by Ms. Yap. See Agenda Decision, Decision Granting Intervenor Compensation Claim to TURN for Substantial Contribution to D.19-03-025, p. 10 (showing TURN’s explanation that it adjusted the hours “claimed” in the request to reflect only the 50% of the time billed that was actually paid by TURN). On the other hand, in TURN’s request for compensation in I.17-03-002, TURN claimed 100% of Ms. Yap’s hours but at 50% of her hourly rate. See D.19-10-019, pp. 14-15 (showing TURN’s explanation, “Consistent with TURN’s sharing Ms. Yap’s services in this proceeding with SCGC, the requested amounts of intervenor compensation associated with her work reflect 50% of the requested rate applied to 100% of the requested hours.”). If the Commission would prefer that TURN present this claim using either of these other approaches instead of the approach TURN has used here, TURN would be glad to do so.

51


D. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments

Item Reason

[1] Adopting $340 rate for 2019. New rate based on 2018 rate of $315 adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-357 (2.35% COLA) plus the first 5% step increase.

[2] Adopting $215 rate for 2019. New rate based on 2018 rate of $210 adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-357 (2.35% COLA).

[3] Adopting 2018 rate of $160 based on the 13 plus years of experience tier for an expert in 2018. Ms. Dowdell has over 30 years of experience in regulated utilities, independent power, financial services, and accounting. TURN requested the rate of $160, and we find this rate is reasonable.

[4] Adopting $600 rate for 2019. New rate based on 2011 rate of $535 adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-281 (2.20% COLA), Resolution ALJ-287 (2.00% COLA), Resolution ALJ-303 (2.58% COLA), Resolution ALJ-329 (1.28% COLA), Resolution ALJ-345 (2.14% COLA), Resolution ALJ-352 (2.30% COLA), and Resolution ALJ-357 (2.35% COLA). Rate was not rounded off to the nearest five as $600 is the actual rate charged by Mr. Florio to TURN in 2019.

[5] Adopting $205 rate for 2018. New rate based on $200 2017 rate adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-352 (2.30% COLA).

[6] Adopting $200 rate for 2018. New rate based on 2011 rate of $175 adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-281 (2.2% COLA), Resolution ALJ-287 (2.00% COLA), Resolution ALJ-303 (2.58% COLA), Resolution ALJ-329 (1.28% COLA), Resolution ALJ-345 (2.14% COLA), Resolution ALJ-352 (2.30% COLA), and Resolution ALJ-357 (2.35% COLA). Rate was not rounded off to the nearest five as $200 is the actual rate charged by Mr. Kuperwicz to TURN in 2018.

[7] Adopting $285 rate for 2018. $285 rate already established in D.19-08-032.

[8] Adopting $200 rate for 2017. Rate based on the 7-12 years of experience tier for an expert in 2017. Ms. McGovern has experience as a utility analyst for Oregon Public Utilities Commission.

[9] Adopting $270 rate for 2019. New rate based on 2018 rate of $265 adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-357 (2.35% COLA).

[10] Adopting $295 rate for 2018. New rate based on 2015 rate of $280 adjusted to reflect Resolution ALJ-329 (1.28% COLA), Resolution ALJ-345 (2.14% COLA), and Resolution ALJ-352 (2.30% COLA).

[11] TURN shared Ms. Yap’s consulting services with SCGC in this proceeding, with TURN responsible for payment of 50% of the invoiced amount. Consistent with this cost-sharing arrangement, TURN’s claim presents the full number of hours billed by Ms. Yap, as well as an adjustment removing 50% of the costs for time billed to show TURN’s actual responsibility for paying Ms. Yap. We find this approach reasonable and allow 50% of the costs (TURN’s portion of the

52


payment for Ms. Yap’s consulting services).

PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTSWithin 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. The Utility Reform Network has made a substantial contribution to D.19-09-051.

2. The requested hourly rates for The Utility Reform 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 $1,138,050.16.

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 $1,138,050.16.

2. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company shall pay The Utility Reform Network their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional electric and gas revenues for the 2018 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. If such data is unavailable, the most recent electric and gas revenue data shall be used. 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 February 15, 2020, the 75th day after the filing of The Utility Reform Network’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.

53


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

This decision is effective today.

Dated _____________, at San Francisco, California.

54

A.17-10-007 et al ALJ/RL8/ML2/avs

APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary InformationCompensation Decision: Modifies Decision? NoContribution Decision(s): D1909051Proceeding(s): A1710007 et al.Author: ALJ Rafael Lirag & ALJ Manisha LakhanpalPayer(s): San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas

Company

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Date Claim Filed

Amount Requested

Amount Awarded

Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance

The Utility Reform Network

12/2/19 $1,138,050.16

$1,138,050.16 N/A See CPUC Section D Comments,

Disallowances, and Adjustments above.

Hourly Fee Information

First Name Last Name Attorney, Expert, or Advocate

Hourly Fee Requested

Year Hourly Fee Requested

Hourly Fee Adopted

Robert Finkelstein Attorney $520 2017 $520.00Robert Finkelstein Attorney $530 2018 $530.00Robert Finkelstein Attorney $540 2019 $540.00Hayley Goodson Attorney $405 2017 $405.00Hayley Goodson Attorney $435 2018 $435.00Hayley Goodson Attorney $445 2019 $445.00Marcel Hawiger Attorney $425 2017 $425.00Marcel Hawiger Attorney $435 2018 $435.00Marcel Hawiger Attorney $445 2019 $445.00Thomas Long Attorney $575 2016 $575.00Thomas Long Attorney $585 2017 $585.00Thomas Long Attorney $600 2018 $600.00Thomas Long Attorney $615 2019 $615.00

Elise Torres Attorney $245 2017 $245.00Elise Torres Attorney $315 2018 $315.00Elise Torres Attorney $340 2019 $340.00Eric Borden Expert $205 2017 $205.00Eric Borden Expert $210 2018 $210.00Eric Borden Expert $215 2019 $215.00

55

A.17-10-007 et al ALJ/RL8/ML2/avs

Jennifer Dowdell Expert $160 2018 $160.00Michel Florio Attorney $600 2019 $600.00Garrick Jones Expert $205 2018 $205.00Richard Kuprewicz Expert $200 2018 $200.00William Marcus Expert $280 2017 $280.00William Marcus Expert $290 2018 $290.00Jaime McGovern Expert $200 2017 $200.00Jaime McGovern Expert $200 2018 $200.00Jaime McGovern Expert $200 2019 $200.00Kevin Woodruff Expert $265 2018 $265.00Kevin Woodruff Expert $270 2019 $270.00

Catherine Yap Expert $280 2017 $280.00Catherine Yap Expert $295 2018 $295.00Catherine Yap Expert $295 2019 $295.00

(END OF APPENDIX)

56

docs.cpuc.ca.gov · web viewthe commission in d.15-08-023 awarded turn approximately $1.5 million...

Documents