icomp claim form -...

ALJ/JF2/mal PROPSOED DECISION Agenda ID # 16883Ratesetting

Decision

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop an Electricity Integrated Resource Planning Framework and to Coordinate and Refine Long-Term Procurement Planning Requirements

Rulemaking 16-02-007(Filed February 11, 2016)

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION D.16-06-042 AND 18-02-018

Intervenor: The Union of Concerned Scientists

For contribution to Decisions (D.) 16-06-042 and 18-02-018

Claimed: $75,644.97 Awarded: $74,986.54

Assigned Commissioner: Liane Randolph

Assigned ALJ: Julie Fitch

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES:

A. Brief description of Decision:

Decision (D.) 16-06-042 closed proceeding R.13-12-010 and transfers the one remaining unresolved set of issues to Rulemaking (R.) 16-02-007.

D.18-02-018 sets requirements for load-serving entities (“LSEs”) to file integrated resource plans per the requirements set forth in section 454.52 of the Public Utilities Code. The Decision also requires LSEs to address issues specific to disadvantaged communities in the IRP filings, adopts a Reference System Plan, sets a GHG planning methodology, and identifies the next steps to continue the IRP process.

B. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:

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

1. Date of Prehearing Conference: 2/25/14 for R.13-12-010 Verified

228548820 1

R.16-02-007 ALJ/JF2/mal PROPOSED DECISION

4/26/16 for R.16-02-007

2. Other specified date for NOI:

3. Date NOI filed: 3/24/14 (for R.13-12-010)

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:

R.16-02-007 Verified

6. Date of ALJ ruling: August 1, 2016 Verified

7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):

D.13-08-019

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:

R.16-02-007 Verified

10. Date of ALJ ruling: August 1, 2016 Verified

11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):

D.13-08-019

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

13. Identify Final Decision: D.16-06-042 and

D.18-02-018

Verified

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision:

6/24/2016 (for D.16-06-042) and 2/13/2018 (for D.18-02-018)

Verified

15. File date of compensation request: April 16, 2018 Verified

16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes

PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION:

A. Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059).

Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

CPUC Discussion

2


Issue A: 2014 LTPP Planning Assumptions

UCS recommended revising the Guiding Principles for the 2014 LTPP planning assumptions to clarify that the 2014 LTPP would be planning for the achievement of existing greenhouse gas emission reduction planning goals.

The Final Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (Final ACR) on Assumptions, Scenarios, and RPS Portfolios for Use in the 2014 LTPP (Feb. 27, 2014) modified the Guiding Principles to reflect this suggestion. Specifically, Guiding Principle A was changed to reference “established policies.”

UCS recommended that the Commission explore a 50% RPS scenario for 2030 in addition to assuming the 33% in the Trajectory Case. UCS recommended modeling a higher RPS achievement because 50% RPS by 2030 was consistent with the existing deployment of renewable resources and a lower bound of what would be needed to reach 2050 emission reduction goals. Finally,

UCS/Sierra Club Comments on Key Technical Questions for Parties in Response to December Workshop on Planning Assumptions and Scenarios for Use in the CPUC 2014 LTPP and the CAISO 2014-2015 TPP, January 8, 2014, p.3.

“Guiding Principle A: Assumptionsshould take a realistic viewof expected achievements fromestablished policies while exploring potential impacts from possible policychanges. “Final Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (Final ACR) on Assumptions, Scenarios, and RPS Portfolios for Use in the 2014 LTPP, R.13-12-010, Feb. 27, 2014, p.10.

UCS/Sierra Club Comments, January 8, 2014, R.13-12-010, pp.4-6 and 10-11.

Final ACR, Feb. 27, 2014, p.39.

Verified

3


UCS thought it necessary to run scenarios that looked at renewable energy penetration levels beyond the 33% RPS (which was the state law at the time), because getting beyond 33% would require long-term planning and failing to explore higher levels of renewables in the 2014 LTPP would be a missed opportunity to understand system needs and planning investments to move beyond 33%.

The Commission’s final ACR contained a 40% RPS by 2024 scenario.

UCS advocated that the Commission incorporate the CEC’s High-Mid assumption of AA-EE into the “High Load” scenario because higher economic growth conditions (as assumed in the “high Load” scenario) result in relatively higher building construction rates and overall energy consumption, creating more opportunities to capture EE saving. In addition, UCS argued that higher economic growth means customers have more money to

UCS/Sierra Club Comments, January 8, 2014, p.9.

UCS/Sierra Club Comments, January 8, 2014, pp.21-23.

Reply Comments of CEJA, Sierra Club, UCS, January 15, 2014, R.13-12-010, pp.9-10.

4


invest in EE upgrades and more efficient appliances, and more buildings constructed means there are more opportunities to make higher EE investments at the ground-level.

For several scenarios, UCS recommended that the Commission revise its “low incremental PV assumption on the demand-side because it was not large enough to provide a meaningful difference between scenarios. UCS recommended that the demand-side PV assumption should be larger to better reflect existing growth trends of rooftop PV.

The Commission’s final ACR changed the “low incremental PV” assumption in several scenarios to a “high incremental small PV” assumption.

UCS suggested that the Commission remove its assumption that the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant remain operational after 2025 because it was unlikely that PG&E would seek a new Diablo license and assuming that generation would be

Final ACR, Feb. 27, 2014, p.41.

UCS/Sierra Club Comments, January 8, 2014, p. 15.

“As a default assumption in the2016 LTPP, it is assumed that DCPP Unit 1 will be retired onNovember 2, 2024 and that Unit 2will be retired on August 20,2025.”Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Adopting Assumptions and Scenarios for Use in the California Independent System Operator’s 2016-17 Transmission Planning Process and Future Commission Proceedings, R.13-12-010, May 17, 2016, p.42.


Reply Comments of CEJA, Sierra Club, UCS on Key Technical Questions for Parties in Response to December Workshop on Planning

5


available as a default assumption would obfuscate an analysis of new procurement needs. However, UCS did believe the Commission should run a sensitivity exploring how outputs would differ if Diablo remained online.

The Commission did not modify its assumption on Diablo in the 2014 LTPP. However, in the 2016 LTPP, the Commission assumed that both Diablo units would be retired by 2025 as the default assumption.

The Commission’s draft 2014 LTPP planning assumptions assumed that no distribution-level or customer-cited storage could provide capacity value to the system. UCS argued that it was unreasonable to assume no distribution-level storage could contribute to capacity and urged the Commission to assume that 75% of distribution-level storage could contribute to capacity and 25%-50% of customer-cited storage could contribute to capacity.

The Final ACR assumed that 50% of the

Assumptions and Scenarios for Use in the CPUC 2014 LTPP and the CAISO 2014-2015 TPP, January 15, 2014, R.13-12-010, pp.6-7.

“…50% of the 425 MW of new distribution-connected storage described above is assumed to provide capacityand flexibility as a default. This acknowledges that greater than zero percent but less than 100% of these resources are expected to provide such services.” Final ACR, Feb. 27, 2014, p.21.


Reply Comments of CEJA, Sierra Club, UCS, January 15, 2014, pp.8-9.

[final DR assumptions] “are admittedly conservative given CPUC expectations to restructure programs and expand capacity…”

Final ACR, Feb. 27, 2014, p.25.

UCS/Sierra Club Comments, January 8, 2014, p.18.

6


distribution-level storage could contribute to capacity.

UCS argued that the capacity value of demand response (DR) resources should not be reduced in local areas based on the CAISO’s “fast response” criteria. UCS provided evidence supporting the fact that the CAISO’s criteria are conservative compared to other ISOs across the country.

In addition, UCS pointed to several Commission programs that are in place to spur additional investments in supply-side DR and that the Commission should adopt assumptions for DR growth that are consistent with the objectives pursued in other Commission proceedings.

The Final ACR acknowledged that the default planning assumptions for DR capacity were conservative.

UCS advocated that the Expanded Preferred Resources scenario assume a larger quantity of demand-side DR to

“Another expected future DR impact may come from defaulting customers to TOU rates. These impacts may be explored in the next major CEC IEPR planning cycle.”

Final ACR, Feb. 27, 2014, p.18.

Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists on Additional CHP Comments Related to Key Technical Questions for Parties in Response to December Workshop on Planning Assumptions and Scenarios for Use in the CPUC 2014 LTPP and the CAISO 2014-2015 TPP, January 8, 2014, R.13-12-010, pp.1-3.

Final ACR, Feb. 27, 2014, p.39.

Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking Comment on Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Policy Actions, Attachment B (RESOLVE documentation), R.16-02-007, September 19, 2017, p.18.

7


reflect the impacts of default time-of-use rates on customers starting in 2018.

While the Final ACR did not adopt UCS’s suggestion, the Final ACR included language that acknowledged the potential significance of default TOU rates and the need to explore this impact in the future:

In its additional comments on CHP, UCS included a back-of-the-envelope calculation to make the point that additional fossil-based CHP is inconsistent with California’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals. UCS therefore advocated that the Commission remove it’s “high penetration of new demand and supply-side CHP” from the Expanded Preferred Resources Scenario.

The Final ACR did not amend the CHP assumption for the Expanded Preferred Resources Scenario. However, UCS believes that its comments materially influenced the Commission’s planning assumptions in the IRP (R.16-02-007), which no longer assume

8


that CHP will increase or that expanding CHP is consistent with the state’s GHG reduction goals. (CHP is held constant in all scenarios).

Issue B: Operational Flexibility Modeling

UCS authored expert testimony, submitted jointly with Sierra Club, that addressed modeling conducted by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) in its opening testimony for Phase 1a: System Reliability Needs. This testimony contained the results of PLEXOS modeling conducted by UCS to determine major factors driving renewable energy curtailment in the CAISO’s 40% RPS by 2024 scenario.

UCS used PLEXOS, the same model used by the CAISO, to run 5 sensitivities to explore the degree to which making changes in assumptions for exports, the CAISO’s “regional generation requirement”, and three flexibility characteristics of natural gas generation might change renewable curtailment levels.

UCS’s testimony

Prepared Opening Testimony of Dr. Jimmy Nelson on Behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Sierra Club Including Errata, September 24, 2014, R.13-12-010, pp.1-6.

Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Admitting Phase 1A Testimony into the Record, August 4, 2015, R.13-12-010.

Opening Testimony of UCS/SC, September 24, 2014, pp.7-9.

Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking Comment on Proposed

Verified

9


demonstrated that the CAISO’s assumptions of not allowing net exports was a significant driver of renewable energy curtailment. This was supported by the UCS modeling results that showed curtailment dropping to zero when unlimited net exports were allowed.

While there was nothing for the Commission to officially adopt as a result of this information, UCS added valuable insight to the larger discussion of operational flexibility needs and solutions by acting as the only stakeholder to use quantitative evidence to make the point that regional coordination between grid operators in the West is an important tool the Commission should be pursuing over time, as the state seeks to integrate higher levels of renewable energy.

UCS believes that its comments in the 2014 LTPP had a material impact on the export assumptions made in the 2017 IRP Reference System Plan. In the IRP, high/med/low net export scenarios were run. In all cases, the net exports were 2000 MW in 2018

Reference System Plan and Related Policy Actions, Attachment B (RESOLVE documentation), R.16-02-007, September 19, 2017, p.69.

Opening Testimony of UCS/SC, September 24, 2014, pp.9-22.

First Set of Data Requests of Sierra Club and UCS to the CAISO, August 25, 2014.

“In previous LTPP studies using production cost simulation models, a regional generation

10


and scaled up to 8000 MW by 2030 in the “high case”.

UCS’s testimony also demonstrated that the CAISO’s imposition of a “regional generation requirement” in its operational flexibility modeling was a significant driver of renewable energy curtailment in the 40% RPS scenario.

The CAISO’s regional generation constraint required that at least 25% of load be met by generation from local resources in each hour. Local resources could include natural gas or large hydropower, but NOT renewables, demand response, or battery storage. (See R.13-12-010 Phase 1.A. Direct Testimony of Dr. Shucheng Liu on Behalf of the California Independent System Operator Corporation, August 13, 2014, pp.15-16.)

The regional generation requirement was imposed by the CAISO late in the modeling process, without adequate public comment. The regional generation requirement was also not part of the CAISO’s operational rules. UCS and Sierra

requirement constraint was imposed…the 25 percentregional generation requirement constraint is removed.”“50% of the headroom requirement (remaining 376 MW) is assumed to bemet by storage (excluding pumped hydro storage) and/or online combinedcycle resources.”Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Adopting Assumptions andScenarios for Use in the California Independent System Operator’s 2016-17 Transmission Planning Process and Future Commission Proceedings, R.13-12-010, May 17, 2016, pp.45-46.

“The CAISO BAA only has a Frequency Response ConstraintAnd does not have a RegionalGeneration Requirement.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Directing Production Cost Modeling Requirements, September 23, 2016, R.16-02-007, p. 26.

11


Club submitted a data request to CAISO to understand the reasons behind the need to impose a regional generation requirement in their modeling and received a very general and opaque response that the regional generation requirement was needed to ensure adequate frequency response.

Given the lack of transparency with this modeling assumption, UCS wanted to perform a sensitivity to understand the degree to which a regional generation drove renewable energy curtailment. When UCS removed the regional generation requirement in the CAISO’s 40% RPS scenario, curtailment decreased by 39%.

To challenge the assumption that frequency response could only be provided by large hydropower or natural gas, UCS used PLEXOS to explore the possibility of providing frequency response services from a diverse set of non-fossil sources.

UCS used the results of its analysis to argue that non-conventional resources should be

12


allowed to provide frequency response services and that the regional generation requirements need to be better understood in order to determine which resource can and cannot contribute to providing necessary grid services, including carbon-free resources.

UCS’s testimony also contained the results of three sensitivities that measured the impact on curtailment of increasing flexibility characteristics of the gas fleet. The results suggested that making additional investments in the current gas fleet to add flexibility may not reduce renewable energy curtailment. UCS pointed to these results to reiterate the point that both conventional and non-conventional resources should be incentivized to provide essential grid flexibility services.

In the 2016 LTPP, the Commission issued new production cost modeling requirements for all parties that removed the CAISO’s regional generation constraint and allowed for energy storage to provide up to 50% of the frequency response

Prepared Additional Reply Testimony of Dr. Jimmy Nelson on Behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Sierra Club, December 18, 2014, R.13-12-010, pp.2-20.

“not sufficient evidence at this time to authorize additional flexible or system capacity procurement through 2024 in this proceeding. There is both sufficient time and a critical need to further develop modeling efforts to inform the 2016 LTPP proceeding…”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Discontinuing Phase 1A and Setting Forth Issues for Phase 1B, March 25, 2015, R.13-12-010, p.4.

“there was a general lack of confidence in results [from stochastic modeling] delivered so far.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Directing Production Cost Modeling Requirements, September 23, 2016, R.16-02-007, p.5.

“The end goal of this [model

13


constraint that replaced the regional generation requirement. This change was supported by the quantitative evidence that UCS added to the record to challenge the wisdom of the regional generation requirement and the rules prohibiting non-conventional resources from providing essential grid flexibility services.

UCS also submitted reply testimony on behalf of UCS and Sierra Club that provided comments on Phase 1a stochastic modeling testimony submitted by the CAISO. In the testimony, UCS discussed the CAISO’s methodology for creating variation in solar generation and demand profiles, and how it could cause unrealistic amounts of renewable energy curtailment and overstate the magnitude of upward capacity shortfall observed during daylight hours. The reply testimony also suggested a new method for generating solar and demand profiles that would fix those issues. The purpose of this reply testimony was to

validation] exercise is to confirm that the model(s) are accurate and appropriate for use by the Commission to evaluate need andauthorize procurement in current and future proceedings.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Discontinuing Phase 1a and Setting Forth Issues for Phase 1b, March 25, 2015, R.13-12-010, p.8.

Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Sierra Club on California Independent System Operator Corporation Deterministic Studies Dated May 8, 2015, May 29, 2015, R.13-12-010, pp.2-8.

“…when a production cost model forecasts over-supply…exporting energy outside the BAA becomes economic, as does renewables curtailment.”Administrative Law Judge Ruling Directing Production Cost Modeling Requirements, Attachment A, September 23, 2016, R.16-02-007, p.6.

14


identify significant limitations with the CAISO’s current stochastic modeling methodology and urge the Commission to not make procurement decisions based on its outputs. The ALJ’s Ruling directing production cost modeling requirements issued in R.16-02-007, which “result from work by Commission staff and parties in the prior LTPP rulemaking R.13-12-010”, acknowledged that there was a general lack of confidence in results from stochastic modeling implying that procurement should not be based on stochastic results.

The ALJ’s ruling that discontinued Phase 1a and set forth questions for Phase 1b acknowledged modeling limitations and made a similar conclusion about not basing procurement on these modeling outputs at this time.

The ALJ’s ruling that discontinued Phase 1A and set forth questions for Phase 1B also authorized the CAISO to conduct a “no curtailment” deterministic study to

15


characterize the nature and extent of need for flexible resources to address expected over-generation andramping needs in 2024.

UCS and Sierra Club jointly filed comments on this CAISO study to make the point that a “no curtailment” scenario does not represent a situation that is likely to be realized in practice, and that a modeling run preventing all potential renewable energy curtailment will not provide useful information to the Commission about the most cost-effective way to prevent curtailment, and ignores the fact that in some cases, renewable curtailment may be the most cost-effective way to provide needed grid flexibility.

The ALJ’s Ruling directing production cost modeling requirements issued in R.16-02-007, which “result from work by Commission staff and parties in the prior LTPP rulemaking R.13-12-010” moved away from assuming no renewable energy could be curtailed and instead acknowledged

16


curtailment as a grid management strategy.

Issue C: Revisions to LTPP Modeling Methodology

UCS and Sierra Club jointly filed opening and reply comments on Energy Division’s proposed revisions to the LTPP modeling methodology. In these comments, UCS made several points that substantially contributed to the Commission modifying LTPP modeling methods and assumptions for the 2016 LTPP.

For example, in both opening and reply comments on the proposed revisions to LTPP modeling methodology, UCS urged the Commission to incorporate more aggressive assumptions about the ability of non-conventional resources to provide essential grid reliability services, including regulation and load following.

UCS pointed out that the CAISO had recently announced that renewables would be able to provide a portion of load following down in their own modeling. The comments contained additional

Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Sierra Club on Proposed Revisions to LTPP Modeling Methodology, December 4, 2015, R.13-12-010, pp.3-4.

Reply Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council on Proposed Revisions to LTPP Modeling Methodology, December 11, 2015, R.13-12-010, pp.8-9.

“RESOLVE also allows renewables to provide load following down. This allows renewables to be curtailed on a sub-hourly level to provide reserves.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking Comment on Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Policy Actions, Attachment B (RESOLVE documentation), R.16-02-007, September 19, 2017, p.65.

Verified

17


specific suggestions for how to model renewables providing reserves.

Although the Commission did not incorporate UCS’s suggestion in its ruling that provided guidance for production cost modeling in R.16-02-007 before the IRP was rolled out, the Commission did adopt UCS’s suggestion in its assumptions about the ability of renewables to provide reserves in its own IRP modeling of the Reference System Plan.

The Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling adopting assumptions and scenarios for the 2016 LTPP directly referenced UCS’s analysis that looked at the role of non-fossil resources in a 50% RPS and used it to support the decision to run a “Renewables Providing Operational Flexibility” scenario in the 2016 LTPP.

In its opening comments on Energy Division’s proposed revisions to the LTPP modeling methodology, UCS made several additional suggestions to Energy

“The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently found that reaching the 50% RPS target while utilizing zero or low GHG tools to provide operational flexibility (which include flexibleoperation of RPS generators) reduces the electric sector’s GHGs by 20% relative to using existing “peaker” gas‐fired resources for operational flexibility.UCS’s description of thismore ideal electric system reliability paradigm could be realized by changing renewable procurement practices, modifying compensation to include other products besides kWhproduced, requiring renewable generators to install control equipment, and by supporting/enabling the ability of renewable resources to participate in CAISO markets.”Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Adopting Assumptions andScenarios for Use in the California Independent System Operator’s 2016-17 Transmission Planning Process and Future Commission Proceedings, R.13-12-010, May 17, 2016, pp.59.

“…thinking among experts continues to evolve about how to define flexibility ‘need’ and whether it is most appropriately analyzed for its

18


Division on how transmission import limitations should be calculated and documented, how to clarify ambiguities associated with the Commission’s suggestion for how to define “loss of load”, how future modeling should address overgeneration, and how to refine the frequency response requirement that the CAISO had recently announced would replace the problematic regional generation requirement.

Notably, UCS’s opening and reply comments made the point that even with additional modeling improvements, it will be difficult for the Commission to be able to clearly define a “need” for flexible resources and conduct a subsequent analysis to determine what should fill that need. Rather, UCS suggested that future modeling efforts in the LTPP and emerging IRP process consider using investment optimization models like E3’s RESOLVE that can find the most economic solutions to meet all needs of the grid. UCS pointed out that

physical characteristics or its economic implications or (most likely) both.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Directing Production Cost Modeling Requirements, September 23, 2016, R.16-02-007, p.5.

Reply Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council on Proposed Revisions to LTPP Modeling Methodology, December 11, 2015, R.13-12-010, pp.1-16.

19


investment optimization models can be very helpful in exploring different combinations of resources that can achieve California’s many policy objectives at lowest cost.

The ALJ’s Ruling directing production cost modeling requirements issued in R.16-02-007, which “result from work by Commission staff and parties in the prior LTPP rulemaking R.13-12-010” echoed UCS’s position by pointing out that approach for defining flexibility “need” is evolving and opened the door to using an optimization model instead of defining it upfront. The Commission ultimately chose to use RESOLVE, and investment optimization tool for the IRP.

Issue D: IRP Concept Paper and Staff Proposal

In UCS’s comments on the Energy Division staff’s IRP Concept Paper, UCS advocated that any models used to develop the CPUC’s reference system plan should be make publicly available. Even if the Commission and the LSEs used standardized inputs that

Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists on the CPUC Concept Paper on Integrated Resource Planning, August 31, 2016, R.16-02-007, pp.2-3.

“-Paul Klapka, SCEQ: Where do you expect to be developing assumptions? Is the resolve model

Verified

20


had been vetted by all stakeholders, not having access to the models themselves will give stakeholders a wholly inadequate understanding of what is driving results and whether the results can justify new procurement.

When the CPUC first chose to use RESOLVE to develop the IRP Reference System Plan, the model was not publicly available. However, RESOLVE was ultimately made available to stakeholders through the CPUC website.

UCS’s comments on the Concept Paper also suggested revising Guiding Principle 1 to remove the word “prioritize” to remove confusion that the Commission can authorize procurement for resources that don’t appear to be the most cost-effective investment in the short-run but are necessary and cost-effective in the long-run to meet the state’s GHG reduction goals.

In the revised guiding principles contains in the Energy Division Staff Proposal for implementing the IRP, Guiding Principle was revised per UCS’s suggestion.

UCS’s comments on the Concept Paper also highlighted the risk that the CPUC will develop the Reference System Plan, but not be able to determine whether the

commercially available?A: RESOLVE is not commercially available but we’ll provide an update on its public availability at the next webinars.”Notes from Modeling Advisory Group, October 20, 2016, question from Paul Klapka, SCE, p.2.

Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists on the CPUC Concept Paper on Integrated Resource Planning, August 31, 2016, R.16-02-007, p.3.

(Revised Guiding Principle #1): “The structure and design of the IRP process should reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure electric grid reliability while meeting the state’s other policy goals in a cost-effective manner.”Proposal for Implementing Integrated Resource Planning at the CPUC; an Energy Division Staff Proposal, May 17, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.19.


21


aggregation of all the individual LSE-generated IRPs collectively achieve the sector-wide GHG emission reduction goals.

Additional UCS comments on the IRP Staff Proposal reiterated the concern that the Commission does not have a clear process in place to result a potential situation where it is not immediately clear which LSE is “at fault” for causing the aggregate of LSE plans to not meet the GHG emission planning targets in the Reference System Plan.

In the following IRP Staff Proposal, the Commission did acknowledge that LSEs will be given the opportunity to revise their proposals if found to be deficient, but still did not address the question of what happens if the sum of all the IRPs fails to collectively reduce GHGs consistent with the state’s planning target.

When a stakeholder brought up this risk during the informational webinar on the Proposal for Implementing IRP, Energy Division staff acknowledged the risk and uncertainty still inherent in the Staff Proposal. During the webinar, Energy Division staff indicated that they wanted to address this in the Modeling Advisory Group, but that more work needed to be done to resolve this risk.

UCS’s comments on the

Comments from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the Staff Proposal for Implementing Integrated Resource Planning, June 28, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.2 and 17.

Informational Webinar on the Proposal for Implementing IRP (audio recording), May 24, 2017, relevant excerpt at 1 hour, 25 min.

22


Concept Paper also suggested that all LSEs be required to run at least one scenario that uses a common set of assumptions to help the Commission compare the results of individual LSE IRPs and determine the cumulative impact of multiple IRPs on sector-wide GHG reduction goals.

In the following IRP Staff Proposal, the Commission clarified that LSEs must run at least one scenario in individual IRPs that are consistent with the assumptions made in the Reference System Plan.

UCS’s comments on the Concept Paper also emphasized that the ability of the RESOLVE model to adequately capture the value of distributed energy resources or optimize their investment in the Reference System Plan would be significantly limited.

UCS’s comments on the Concept Paper also make the case that any long-lead-time resources considered should also account for climate change, and how things like more frequent or intense wildfires, drought, or extreme heat events may impact those large capital-intensive investments.

UCS’s comments on the Staff Proposal also made several comments on the proposed


“The LSE guidance part of the Reference System Plan will specify at least one scenario, along with associated assumptions…that each LSE must represent in developing its own LSE portfolio.”

IRP Staff Proposal, May 17, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.55.



23


RESOLVE modeling input assumptions. In particular, UCS urged the Commission to enforce the RPS procurement requirement and the energy storage mandate, since both types of investments are required by law.

The Commission’s final Decision on the IRP Reference System Plan incorporated the 50% RPS into baseline assumptions and included a sensitivity that modeled the storage mandate.

UCS’s comments on the Staff Proposal also made several comments on the proposed RESOLVE modeling outputs. In particular, UCS asked that RESOLVE outputs for the Reference System Plan include total energy generation (MWh) provided by each technology, not simply MW of capacity built, as suggested by the Staff Proposal.

The Preliminary RESOLVE modeling results contained generation outputs as well as capacity additions.

UCS’s comments on the Staff Proposal pointed to a limitation in RESOLVE, which only allowed gas plants to be retired after 25 or 40 years. UCS pointed out that this was a suboptimal approach to fully

UCS Comments on IRP Staff Proposal, June 28, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.10.

CPUC Proposed Reference System Plan, September 19, 2017, Attachment C, R.16-02-007.

“Storage Mandate: full storage mandate of 1,325 megawatts (MW) achieved by 2024.”D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.34.


Preliminary RESOLVE Modeling Results for Integrated Resource Planning at the CPUC, July 19, 2017, Slides 51-53

UCS Comments on IRP Staff Proposal,

24


understanding the impacts of early gas fleet retirements on GHG emissions and grid reliability. This led to a Commission acknowledgement that more analysis of the gas fleet was needed.

UCS’s informal comments responding to the December workshop on draft modeling methods and assumptions supported the Commission analyzing a few scenarios that examined the benefit of making investments in long-lead time resources. UCS suggested that the Commission assume long-duration storage to have a capacity of at least 1300 MW to reflect the capacity of the existing Helms storage project and the proposed one at Eagle Mountain.

The Commission’s Staff Proposal increased its assumption for new pumped storage in the “long-duration” storage case to 1000 MW.

June 28, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.12.

“…staff recommended that more analysis was needed to identify the types of gas plants, or plant attributes, that are most desirable and most needed for reliability…Some fundamental needs raised by parties include…whether services currently provided by gas can be economically replaced by other resources…”D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.144.

UCS Informal Comments Regarding Questions for Parties Following the December 16, 2016 Workshop, January 13, 2017, p.1.

UCS Informal Reply Comments Regarding Questions for Parties Following the December 16, 2016 Workshop, January 24, 2017, p.4.


IRP Staff Proposal, May 17, 2017, R.16-02-007, Appendix B: List of Values for Each IRP Modeling Assumption.

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, pp.71-78.

Issue E: GHG Planning Targets

UCS’s informal comments on UCS Informal Comments of the Union

Verified

25


implementing a GHG planning target in the IRP urged the Commission to clarify, in it’s proposed “objective #3” of the CPUC Staff White Paper on GHG Planning Targets, that GHG reduction targets for the IRP should be consistent with the state’s requirements to reduce emission throughout the economy, as instructed by Senate Bill 32.

In the following Staff Proposal, “objective #3” was revised to clarify that GHG targets “should facilitate…the state’s GHG reduction and other policy goals…”

In UCS’s informal reply comments regarding questions for parties following the December 16, 2016 workshop, UCS reiterated its support for using the “low” end of the range provided by ARB as the planning target.

Similarly, UCS’s comments on the Staff Proposal point out that the proposed emissions range for the “CARB Proposed Scenario”, 42-62 MMT, is too broad a range to yield a coherent set of results. UCS urged the Commission to narrow this range and consider dropping the high-end of the “Default” scenario because it will “likely not be binding on the system and will not tell us anything about investments

of Concerned Scientists on Implementing GHG Planning Targets in the IRP Process, November 20, 2016, R.16-02-007, p.3

“Revised Objective 3: GHG planning targets should facilitate optimal solutions to achieve the state’s GHG reduction and other policy goals, while enabling each LSE to serve its customers reliably and at just and reasonable rates.”IRP Staff Proposal, May 17, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.32.

UCS Informal Reply Comments Regarding Questions for Parties Following the December 16, 2016 Workshop, January 24, 2017, p.3.

UCS Comments on the Staff Proposal for Implementing Integrated Resource Planning, June 28, 2017, R.16-02-007, pp.4-5.

“Continuing on the path toward the Default Scenario overall may notprovide enough market stimulation for the resource areas and markets that willbe needed to achieve more aggressive goals in the future, such as energyefficiency, demand response, and storage, in addition to renewables.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking comment on Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Commission Policy Actions, September

26


that LSEs will need to make to achieve the deeper GHG reductions required past 2030.”

The Commission’s ultimate Proposed and Final decisions on the IRP Reference System Plan dropped the “Default” scenario and chose the 42 MMT as the default planning scenario.

In UCS’s informal comments on implementing GHG planning targets in the IRP, UCS supported using a “mass-based approach” to GHG planning in the IRP because “it is the most transparent way to ensure that LSE plans align with statewide GHG reduction requirements. Yet, these comments also acknowledged that setting individual targets for each LSE would be a challenge. Therefore, UCS conceded that using an assigned proxy price for GHGs would provide the LSEs a clear planning metric for LSEs, but it is less transparent than a mass-based planning target.

In UCS’s comments on the Staff Proposal, UCS preferred using a mass-based approach to drive GHG emissions reductions in individual IRP plans because “it was the most clear-cut way to ensure the individual LSEs collectively reduce the amount of GHG emissions…for the IRP

19, 2017, R.16-02-007, pp.16-17.

“We intend to adopt the staff recommendation of the 42 MMT Scenario…”D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.57.

UCS Informal Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists on Implementing GHG Planning Targets in the IRP Process, November 20, 2016, R.16-02-007, pp.3-4.

UCS Comments on IRP Staff Proposal, June 28, 2017, R.16-02-007, pp.5-8.

“…LSEs may also benefitfrom having more specific criteria bywhich they can assess the reasonableness of their GHG forecast estimates prior to the filing of their plans.”Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Seeking comment on Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Commission Policy Actions, September 19, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.27.

Opening Comments of UCS on the ALJ’s Ruling Seeking Comment on the Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Policy Actions, October 26, 2017, R.16-02-007, pp.22-23.

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-

27


process.” However, UCS supported the Commission using a GHG planning price, given the complexity of dividing the GHG pie into individual LSE budgets, but pointed out that the risk of that approach is that it does not guarantee the collective sum of GHG emissions associated with individual LSE plants will be less than or equal to the total emissions limit in the Reference System Plan.

In response to this concern, the Commission’s ultimate Proposed and Final decisions on the IRP Reference System Plan also requires that each LSE compare the emissions associated with its preferred portfolio against a Commission-assigned GHG benchmark. The Commission’s reasoning for this was: “If the total emissions attributable to the LSE’s preferred portfolio exceed its GHG Emissions Benchmark for 2030, the LSE would be required to explain the difference and describe additional measures it would take over the following 1-3 years to close the cap…”

UCS’s informal comments on implementing GHG planning targets in the IRP also pointed out that GHG planning targets are evolving, and therefore planning should be iterative

02-007, pp.105-126.

Informal Comments of UCS on Implementing GHG Planning Targets in the IRP, November 30, 2016, R.16-02-007, p.6.

Opening Comments of UCS on the ALJ’s Ruling Seeking Comment on the

28


and that targets should be revisited because “it’s not realistic to think that today’s planning targets will translate exactly into tomorrow’s physical emissions limits.”

In UCS’s comments on the Commission’s Proposed Reference System Plan, UCS reiterated that the overall GHG planning target needs to be revisited in each IR cycle and valued in the broader context of California’s legal requirement to reduce emissions throughout the economy.

The Commission’s final decision on the Reference System Plan directly called out UCS’s comment and stated the intent to revisit the GHG target in each IRP planning cycle.

Proposed System Reference Plan and Related Policy Actions, October 26, 2017, R.16-02-007, pp.20-21.

“UCS points out that the target should be revisited in each IRP cycle.”

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.55.

Issue F: Disadvantaged Communities in IRP

UCS’s comments on the ALJ’s ruling requesting comments on disadvantaged communities (DACs) and other aspects of SB 350 first pointed out that RESOLVE lacks adequate granularity to understand impacts of individual gas plant operators, and that LSEs should be required to do their own modeling to quantify the impacts of scenarios to DACs.

The Commission’s final Decision on the Reference

Comments from UCS on Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Requesting Comments on Disadvantaged Communities and Other Aspects of SB 350, February 17, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.5.

“…the RESOLVE model is not designed to analyze the individual natural gas plant dispatch impacts of various GHG constraints, because it handles categories or classes of plants and not individual plants by geography.”

Verified

29


System Plan acknowledged the limitations of RESOLVE and requires that each LSE address how its IRP will impact DACs.

UCS’s comments on the DAC ruling also highlighted the potential air quality synergies between clean electricity procurement and vehicle electrification, especially in DACs.

The Commission’s final Decision on the Reference System Plan explicitly pointed out the comments of parties lie UCS that made the connection between air quality and EVs and teed up the issue for further analysis in the next IRP.

“We will also require each LSE to address in its individual IRP how it willaddress impacts on disadvantaged communities.”D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.60 and 66.

Comments from UCS on Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Requesting Comments on Disadvantaged Communities and Other Aspects of SB 350, February 17, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.6.

“We also appreciate a number of parties’ suggestions for improving the [DACs] analysis in the IRP…in particular, we agree with those parties focusing on the potential benefits and synergies association with electrification transportation…”

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.70.

Issue G: IRP Reference System Plan

UCS’s comments on the Commission’s Proposed Reference System Plan pointed out the inability of the RESOLVE model to quantify the optimal amount of demand-side resources that could help meet future load and GHG reduction requirements. UCS urged the Commission to explore ways modify RESOLVE so that it can optimize DER investments.

The Commission’s final Decision contains plans for

Opening Comments of UCS on the ALJ’s Ruling Seeking Comment on the Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Policy Actions, October 26, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.3.

“For model functionality updates, staff will explore the following issues: including all DERs as candidate resources…”

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, pp.51-52.

Verified

30


staff to explore whether DERs can be treated as candidate resources which could be optimized as part of the overall investment portfolio.

UCS’s comments on the Commission’s Proposed Reference System Plan point out that start-up emissions from natural gas power plants should be counted in RESOLVE in future IRP cycles.

The Commission’s final Decision did not change how natural gas power plant emissions were calculated (because the analysis was already completed before stakeholders could comment on the Proposed Reference System Plan) but guidance on production cost modeling requires that gas plant performance characteristics will include those from starts and stops.

UCS’s biggest concern with the Proposed Reference System Plan was the assumption of RESOLVE that gas generators will remain online in perpetuity and not retire. RESOLVE’s “early retirement scenarios” inadequately address this concern because gas is retired after a set amount of time on the system, and therefore the value of that gas plant to the model and the system is obscured. UCS was very

Opening Comments of UCS on the ALJ’s Ruling Seeking Comment on the Proposed Reference System Plan and Related Policy Actions, October 26, 2017, R.16-02-007, p.4.

“Reporting of operational performance will include at least: LOLE probabilistic reliability level, emissions, including estimating emissions from starts and stops…”D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, Attachment B, p.8.


“…will direct staff to continue to work with CAISO to study the most important attributes of the natural gas fleet…”

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.143-145.

31


concerned that this blind spot in the model will push off critically important discussions about the role of gas on the system through 2030, where it has value, and where it does not.

To address this deficiency, UCS conducted parallel scenario analysis using GridPATH, a model very similar to RESOLVE, to make the point that a meaningful quantity of gas generation capacity would be retired by the model if allowed to do so. This work was added to the record to suggest that the Commission should be wary of assuming the entire existing fleet of gas would be around and needed to meet need in 2030, and that the Commission should further investigate the appropriate role for natural gas in the electricity system through 2030.

The Commission’s final Decision acknowledged the need to further understand the future role for natural gas and in address it in subsequent work.

UCS’s comments on the proposed Reference System Plan praised the Commission for allowing RESOLVE to use renewable energy curtailment to provide load-following down. This concept was supported by UCS’s work in the 2014 LTPP, which challenged CAISO’s


“Modeling system operations by having load following reserve requirements

32


assumptions that only conventional resources could provide ancillary services. UCS suggested that in the future, load following requirements should be updated since the RESOLVE assumptions were based on analysis for one 33% RPS and two 50% RPS scenarios, which may be outdated once the state starts planning for much higher levels of renewables on the grid.

In the Commission’s final Decision on the Reference System Plan, more work to make load-following requirements dynamic was highlighted for future IRP efforts.

UCS’s comments on the proposed Reference System Plan also contained GridPATH modeling results that examined GHG planning targets between the 42 MMT and 30 MMT bookends modeled by RESOLVE to make the point that even if the state is planning for a slightly lower GHG target than 42 MMT, geothermal starts to look more valuable to the system.

In the Commission’s final Decision on the Reference System Plan, it acknowledged that more expensive resources like geothermal may appear more valuable in the future.

respond dynamically to the resources selected by the model.”

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.52.


“Depending on the progress of our GHG mitigation strategies and our renewable integration needs, all three of these resources may prove necessary for reliability and/or economic reasons for the state by 2030. Thus, it will be important to continue to evaluate their costs and benefits in each IRP cycle.”

D.18-02-018, February 8, 2018, R.16-02-007, p.78.

33


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

Intervenor’s Assertion

CPUC Discussion

a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding?1

yes Confirmed

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

yes Confirmed

c. If so, provide name of other parties: EDF, NRDC, CEJA, Sierra Club California, CESA, CEERT.

Verified

d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: This proceeding covered a wide range of issues and UCS coordinated with other parties on a regular basis to discuss positions and avoid duplication. This included extensive collaboration with Sierra Club (represented by Earthjustice) in R.13-12-010 to avoid duplication. UCS was one of the few parties in the IRP that conducted its own analysis to inform expert testimony (in the 2014 LTPP) and comments on the Reference System Plan (in the IRP) which ensured we offered a unique voice and perspective on matters addressed in this proceeding.

Noted

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION:

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

a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:

UCS is providing, as Attachment 2, a detailed list of the comments submitted in R.13-12-010 and R.16-02-007, which ultimately informed D.16-06-042 and D.18-02-018. In addition, Attachment 3 is a detailed breakdown of hours spent for work that was directly related to our substantial contributions to the record that was established in R.13-12-010, which evolved into R.16-02-007 and resulted in D.16-06-042 and D.18-02-018.

UCS believes that the hours claimed herein are reasonable given the scope of the LTPP and IRP proceedings, it’s highly technical nature, and the strong participation by UCS.

CPUC Discussion

Noted

1 The Office of Ratepayer Advocates was renamed the Public Advocates Office of the Public Utilities Commission, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 854, which was signed by the Governor on June 27, 2018. (Chapter 51, Statutes of 2018).

34


UCS’s filing and informal comments were informed by substantial analysis, including additional production cost and investment optimization modeling that highlighted deficiencies in the analysis conducted by the CAISO and the CPUC. UCS used its modeling capacity to make critical and unique contributions to the record that advanced the Commission’s perspective on the wisdom of using the CAISO’s “regional generation requirement”, the ability of non-fossil generation to provide certain grid reliability services, and the need to better understand the role of gas plant value in future IRP cycles.

b. Reasonableness of hours claimed: UCS made significant contributions to the record of R.13-012-010 and R.16-02-007, which ultimately resulted in D.16-06-042 and D.18-02-018. These efforts included participation in multiple workshops, webinars, phone calls for the IRP “modeling advisory group”, drafting filings and informal comments, and coordinating with other parties to avoid duplication.

UCS is only requesting hours working on substantive issues that are directly related to preparing stakeholder comments. We are not requesting compensation for hours spent conducting the analysis that informed our positions.

UCS is also not requesting hours that it finds may be considered duplicative. For example, UCS is not requesting hours for Michael Cohen’s participation in drafting comments in R.16-02-007 even though these necessary hours contributed to UCS’s participation in the proceeding.

Noted

c. Allocation of hours by issue:

Issue A: LTPP Planning Assumptions (15%)Issue B: Operational Flexibility Modeling (39%)Issue C: Revisions to LTPP Modeling Methodology (19%)Issue D: IRP Concept Paper and Staff Proposal (14%)Issue E: GHG Planning Targets (1%)Issue F: Disadvantaged Communities in IRP (2%)Issue G: IRP Reference System Plan (8%)

Noted

35


B. Specific Claim:*

CLAIMED CPUC AWARD

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES

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

Laura Wisland

2013 10 $145 D.15-10-016 1,450.00 10.00 $145.00 $1,450.00

Laura Wisland

2014 52.75 $157.50 D.15-10-016 plus 5% step increase D.07-01-009(0-6 yrs experience)

8,308.13 52.75 $145.00 [A]

$7,648.75

Laura Wisland

2015 12.5 $157.50 No change from 2014

1,968.75 12.50 $157.50 $1,968.75

Laura Wisland

2016 40 $167.49 5% step increaseD.07-01-009 (7-12 yrs experience) plus 1.28% COLA Res. ALJ-329

6,699.67 40.00 $167.49 $6,699.60 [B]

Laura Wisland

2017 70.5 $171.08 2.14% COLA Res. ALJ-345

12,060.87 70.50 $171.08 $12,061.14 [C]

Jimmy Nelson

2013 10 $170 1,700.00 10.00 $170.00 $1,700.00

Jimmy Nelson

2014 149.25

$183.11 5% step D.07-01-009 (0-6 yrs) plus 2.58% COLA Res. ALJ-303

27,328.47 149.25 $183.11 $27,329.17 [D]

Jimmy Nelson

2015 84.5 $183.11 No change from 2014

15,472.80 84.50 $183.11 $15,472.80

Subtotal: $74,988.67 Subtotal: $74,330.21INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **

Item Year Hours

Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate Total $

Laura Wisland

2018 7.5 87.51 2.30% COLA Res. ALJ-352

656.29 7.50 $87.51 $656.33 [E]

Subtotal: $656.29 Subtotal: $656.33TOTAL REQUEST: $75,644.97 TOTAL AWARD: $74,986.54

*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

36


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

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

Attachment or Comment

#

Description/Comment

Att 1 Certificate of Service

Att 2 List of Comments Submitted in R.13-12-010 and R.16-02-007

Att 3 Timesheets

Att 4 CVs for Dr. Jimmy Nelson and Laura Wisland

Comment 1 Ms. Wisland’s rates:Laura Wisland’s 2014 rate of $145 and 2015 rate of $150 were approved in D. 15-10-016. UCS is requesting a 5% step up in the 2015 rate for this work to $157.50. This would be the first step up in rates for work from Ms. Wisland’s while her experience fell into the 0-6 years category. In 2016, Ms. Wisland’s years of experience advanced into the 7-12 years of experience category. Therefore, for Ms. Wisland’s 2016 rate, UCS is requesting a rate of $167.49 to reflect a 5% step up consistent with D.07-01-009 plus a 1.28% COLA increase, consistent with Res. ALJ-329. For 2017, UCS is requesting a rate for Ms. Wisland of $171.08 to reflect a 2.14% COLA increase, consistent with Res. ALJ-345.

Comment 2 Dr. Nelson’s rates:Before working for UCS, Dr. Jimmy Nelson had never previously appeared before the Commission and has yet to request intervenor compensation and therefore does not have a Commission-approved rate. UCS is requesting a rate of $170 in 2013 for Dr. Nelson to reflect the approved range of hourly rates for experts with 0-6 years of experience. See Resolution ALJ-287, establishing a range of $135-$195. For 2014, UCS is requesting a rate of $183.11 for Dr. Nelson to reflect a 5% step up, consistent with D.07-01-009 plus a 2.58% COLA increase, consistent with Res. ALJ-303. There is no change requested for Dr. Nelson’s 2015 rate, as the Commission failed to adopt a COLA increase for 2015.

D. CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments:

Item Reason

[A] Laura Wisland’s 2014 rate of $145 and 2015 rate of $150 were approved in D. 15-10-016. UCS is requesting a 5% step up in the 2015 rate for this work to $157.50. The 2014 rate remains at $145 per hour, not $157.50 per

37


hour (which is for 2015).

[B] - [E] Mathematical Errors

PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS(Within 30 days after service of this Claim, Commission Staff or any other party may file a

response to the Claim (see § 1804(c)))

A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim? No

B. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))?

Yes

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Union of Concerned Scientists has made a substantial contribution to D.18-02-018.

2. The requested hourly rates for The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 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 $74,986.54

CONCLUSION OF LAW

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

ORDER

1. The Union of Concerned Scientists is awarded $74,986.54.

2. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers, Southern California Edison Company ratepayers, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company ratepayers shall pay The Union of Concerned Scientists their respective shares of the award, based on their California-jurisdictional electric revenues for the 2017 calendar year, to reflect the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. 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 July 1, 2018, the 75th day after the filing of The Union of Concerned Scientists’ request, and continuing until full payment is made.

38


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

This decision is effective today.

Dated _____________, at San Francisco, California.

39


APPENDIX

Compensation Decision Summary Information

Compensation Decision: Modifies Decision?Contribution Decision(s): D1802018Proceeding(s): R1602007Author: ALJ FitchPayer(s): Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers, Southern

California Edison Company ratepayers, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company ratepayers.

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Claim Date

Amount Requested

Amount Awarded

Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance

The Union of Concerned Scientists

04/16/2018

$75,644.97 $74,986.54 N/A Mathematical Errors

Advocate Information

First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee

Requested

Year Hourly Fee Requested

Hourly Fee Adopted

Laura Wisland Scientist UCS $145.00 2013 $145.00Laura Wisland Scientist UCS $145.00 2014 $145.00Laura Wisland Scientist UCS $157.50 2015 $157.50Laura Wisland Scientist UCS $167.49 2016 $167.49Laura Wisland Scientist UCS $171.08 2017 $171.08Laura Wisland Scientist UCS $175.02 2018 $175.02Jimmy Nelson Scientist UCS $170.00 2013 $170.00Jimmy Nelson Scientist UCS $183.11 2014 $183.11

(END OF APPENDIX)

icomp claim form -...

Documents