14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: February 13, 2015 Verified. 15. File date of compensation request: March 6, 2015 Verified (amended filing on March 10, 2015). 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes, CFC timely filed the request for compensation. Additional Comments on Part I (use line reference # as appropriate): # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion 1 CFC relies here on the rebuttable presumption of significant financial hardship and customer status awarded to CFC, by the CPUC, in the finding made in R.13.02.008, on October 25, 2013, establishing the rebuttable presumption that CFC has been granted, by the CPUC, of a finding of both financial hardship and customer status. Verified. PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(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 1. Issue: Bridge Funding General (Phase One) In its Response to Questions from Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), at pages 3 and 4, CFC advised the Commission, that even though funding for the programs for 2015 and 2016 had been tentatively approved, the actual amount of funding had yet to be determined. CFC argued, strongly, that the Commission should scrutinize the pilot programs, with a very critical eye toward funding. CFC pointed out that many, many pilot programs had been conducted before the advent of this matter, at CFC Response to Questions from Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), pages 3 and 4. Verified, although CFC’s focus on pilot programs, as listed in the claimed contribution, was excessive in light of the both the issue covered and CFC’s contribution to the proceeding.
in reference to pilot programs, CFC asked the Commission to consider whether the state’s electricity consumers should, through payment of electricity bills, fund another round of pilots, when previous pilots have been costly and produced questionable results. From the earliest stages of this proceeding CFC argued that the Commission take a very critical look at pilots, in terms of past performance and in terms of, specifically, ratepayer money spent to fund these pilots. As such, CFC applauded the Commission when it decided to make a much more critical assessment of future pilot programs than it had in the past. As advocated by CFC, in D.1405025 Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and Bridge Funding Budget, the Commission took a much more critical look at proposed programs than it had in previous, similar matters. Also, In D.1405025 Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Budget, the Commission approved, in general, further ratepayer funded pilots, but limited that funding to the See Consumer Federation of California Reply to Phase Two Foundational Questions Question Responses (December 31, 2013), pages 7 and 8. Consumer Federation of California Reply Comments Relating to the Proposed Decision Approving Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Requirements (April 15, 2014), page 3. Consumer Federation of California Response to Questions from OIR to Enhance the Role of Demand Response in meeting the Resource Planning Needs and Operation Requirements (October, 21, 2013, pages 3 and 4, critical of continuing pilots, without improvements (especially improvements in reporting.) D.1405025 (May 15, 2014), page 22. D.1405025 Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Budget (May 15, 2014), page 20.
bridge funding budget. This was in keeping with the CFC position. We would also note that, in taking a more critical approach at the urging of CFC, the Commission identified at least one pilot as “duplicative.” Though the pilots were allowed to continue, the Commission, in keeping with arguments propounded by CFC, specifically questioned the efficacy of continued programs. D.1405025, Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Budget (May 15, 2014), page 11. 4. Bifurcation CFC generally supported bifurcation and was cited for doing so. CFC supported bifurcation in terms of improving resource adequacy and planning, as well as for improving administrative efficiencies. CFC did not object to the use of the terms “supply-side” and to categorize the various types of DR resources. However, CFC pointed out that, “. . . the definitions of these terms need to be made more specific than those suggested by the Commission.” In its Response to Questions set forth in the Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), page 3. In D.1403026, Addresses Foundational Issues of the Bifurcation of Demand Response Programs. (March 27, 2014), at page 12, fn. 27, the commission cited CFC’s Response to Questions from Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013) page 3 as supportive of bifurcation in general. Also in its Response to Questions set forth in the Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), page 3. In D.1403026 - Addresses Foundational Issues of the Bifurcation of Demand Response Programs. (March 27, 2014), page 14, the Commission found it reasonable to revise the terms proposed in the OIR and adopt more specific definitions, in accord with CFC concerns. Verified, but we note CFC put arguments that were duplicative of other parties, including Sierra Club and The Utility Reform Network, on this issue. This demonstrates that the parties failed to adequately coordinate on this issue, which resulted in a duplicative effort.
of Settlement Agreement on Phase Three Issues, date of issuance, December 12, 2014, the Commission stated, “This decision confirms a policy statement that the use of generation in demand response programs is antithetical to the Energy Action Plan and the Loading Order.” 7. Settlement Evidentiary hearings were scheduled to commence on June 9, 2013, and CFC reserved time for and was prepared for and ready to conduct of witnesses. CFC expended valuable time and resources in preparation for the evidentiary hearing. On June 9, 2014, the evidentiary hearings scheduled for the week of June 9, 2014 was vacated and replaced with a brief hearing. The ALJ then ruled in favor of workshops and two and a half days of workshops commenced. More settlement workshops were held throughout June and July. During a prehearing conference on July 30, 2014, “settling parties” reported settlement had been reached and was in the process of being finalized. CFC would like very much to cite to a specific point in the record where the ALJ specifically rules that ongoing workshops would be more productive and efficient than weeks of evidentiary hearings. While CFC is in possession of the June 9, 2014 and June 12, 2014 transcripts, it is difficult to pinpoint where this ruling regarding workshops is actually made, on the record. We would comment that there were significant “off the record” conversations during this hearing. That said, we would direct staff to RT, June 12, 2014, at page 53. CFC was an active participant in workshops, and meetings, pertaining to settlement. Verified. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s Assertion CPUC Discussion
Specific Claim:* Claimed CPUC ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Item Year Hours Rate Basis for Rate* Total Hours [a] Rate Total Attorney Hilla 2013 165.50 $360 See discussion under Section III $59,580.00 114.46 [b] $320.00 $36,627.20 Attorney Hilla 2014 312.25 $370 (with 2014 adj.) See discussion under Section III $115,532.50 137.60 [c] $330.00 $45,408.00 Subtotal: $175,112.50 Subtotal: $92,117.60 INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION ** Item Year Rate Basis for Rate* Total Rate Total Hilla 2015 37.50 $185 ½ of hourly attorney rate 2014 rate of 370 $6937.50 20.0 [d] $165.00 3,300.00 Subtotal: $6,937.50 Subtotal: $3,300.00 REQUEST: $ 182,050.00 TOTAL AWARD: $85,335.20 **We remind all Intervenors that Commission staff may audit their records related to the award and that Intervenors must make and retain adequate accounting and other documentation to A