Agreement. EDF, with the other Settling Parties, filed Opening and Reply Briefs advocating for the adoption of the Settlement Agreement. EDF continually advocated that the benefits of charging EVs in this manner will result in the following: (1) taking advantage of an abundance of and other energy on the grid; (2) enabling the smooth integration of increasing amounts of renewable energy while reducing reliance on GHG producing gas-fired resources to provide ramping services; and (3) using a price signal to ensure that load is effectively managed. 1. Must support the Governor’s and California state goals to: achieve installation of grid-integrated infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs by 2020; accelerate the adoption of 1.5 million ZEVs by 2025, and support clean air and climate change objectives; 2. Must be structured to provide net benefits to all ratepayers; 3. Must protect ratepayers by ensuring that assets continue to be used and useful; 4. Must provide EV drivers the opportunity to maximize fuel cost savings relative to conventional transportation fuels; 5. Must provide equitable deployment of services to all ratepayers, including statutory requirements and directives to serve disadvantaged communities and increase access to clean transportation; 6. Must provide customer choice; 7. Must support broad-based investment in EV charging equipment and services by public, private and utility entities and avoid anticompetitive impacts on the markets for EV charging equipment and related services; 8. Must incorporate learning-by-doing and make adjustments to the VGI pilot program as needed; 9. Must provide data to help inform policy; 10. Must utilize rate design and load management practices to facilitate the integration of renewable energy resources, as well as deliver other grid benefits; and 11. Must align with SDG&E’s Diversified Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 40% and request subcontractors to provide proposals in support of the 40% goal. As part of the Proposed Settlement, the settling parties have agreed to 16 modifications to SDG&E’s original VGI proposal. According to the Proposed Settlement, positions is also accurate. Pursuant to (D.) 94-10-029, the Commission has discretion to award compensation to parties who participated in settlement agreements, when there is a finding that they made a substantial contribution to a decision. We find that Environmental Defense Fund’s participation in the settlement made a substantial contribution to D.16-01-045.
APPENDIX Compensation Decision Summary Information Compensation Decision: D1606025 Modifies Decision? No Contribution Decision(s): D1601045 Proceeding(s): A1404014, R1311007 Author: ALJ Wong Payer(s): San Diego Gas & Electric Company Intervenor Information Intervenor Claim Date Amount Requested Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance Environmental Defense Fund 03/29/2016 $142,592.50 N/A See CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments, above. Advocate Information First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year Hourly Fee Requested Hourly Fee Adopted Larissa Koehler Attorney EDF $222 2014 $220.00 Larissa Koehler Attorney EDF $222 2015 $220.00 Larissa Koehler Attorney EDF $222 2016 $225.00 James Fine Expert EDF $365 2014 $365.00 James Fine Expert EDF $365 2015 $365.00 James Fine Expert EDF $365 2016 $370.00 Jennifer Weberski Attorney EDF $400 2014 $400.00 Jennifer Weberski Attorney EDF $400 2015 $400.00 Jennifer Weberski Attorney EDF $400 2016 $405.00 Steven Moss Expert EDF $215 2014 $215.00 (END OF APPENDIX)