unnecessary.” Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.14-07-002 Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): n/a 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status? Yes Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.14-07-002 Verified 10. Date of ALJ ruling: December 18, 2014 Verified 11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): n/a 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Yes Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: D. 16-01-045 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: February 4, 2016 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: April 4, 2016. Amended request filed on January 27, 2017 (in open proceeding). Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion (A) General Issues NRDC engaged on all issues involved in this application, both in the formal proceedings and in the settlement negotiations that led to the final adopted decision. While it would violate CPUC Rule 12 governing settlements to disclose all of the specific contributions NRDC made to the final D.16-01-045: “In addition to SDG&E, the other settling parties to the Proposed Settlement are the following: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Honda Motor Company, Inc.; California Coalition of Utility Employees; CALSTART; Center for Sustainable Energy; ChargePoint; EDF; General Motors LLC; GPI; KnGrid; NRDC; NRG EV Services LLC; PIA; Sierra Club; Smart Grid Services, Siemens; and The Greenlining Institute.” As evidence of our leadership of a broad coalition in this proceeding see Attachment Verified
meeting hiring targets, to contractors or subcontractors associated with the increase of hiring from Disadvantaged Communities, including best practices for hiring in Disadvantaged Communities.” (VGI Pilot Terms, p. 9) D. 16-01-045: “SDG&E will solicit the participation of a broad and diverse stakeholder advisory group (the “VGI Program Advisory Council” or “PAC”) in planning and implementing the VGI Program following its approval by the Commission. The VGI PAC will include representatives from local and state government (including representation from the Energy Division), industry, labor and other stakeholder participants, ratepayer and environmental advocates, and representatives of Disadvantaged Communities.” (VGI Pilot Terms, p. 9) (C) Load Management and Fuel Cost Savings In almost every one of the 16 substantive filings and written testimony documents filed or served in this proceeding, NRDC has consistently called for the use of vehicle grid integration and appropriate price signals to both support the integration of variable renewable generation, improve the operation of the grid, and to maximize fuel cost savings for EV drivers who charge in a manner that is consistent with grid conditions. NRDC Rebuttal Testimony, April 13, 2015, p. 1-2: “SDG&E’s ‘Vehicle Grid Integration’ proposal has several distinctive qualities that deserve to be tested in the field. The advanced demand response functionality of SDG&E’s application is unique in its potential to immediately facilitate the integration of variable renewable resources. The California Independent System Operator’s infamous ‘Duck’ has already landed; over the past few months, solar energy has driven a new load shape, especially on weekend days, with lowest ‘net’ load occurring around 1:00 PM. Only SDG&E’s proposal is designed to immediately cope with this new reality, leveraging the growing customer sunk investment in PEV batteries to help meet the dynamic and evolving needs of California’s electric grid.” NRDC Rebuttal Testimony, April 13, 2015, p. 3-4: “Paying between $5 and $11 per gallon equivalent is perhaps even more problematic. A survey of over 16,000 California PEV drivers reveals that “Saving Money on Fuel Costs” is the single most important decision factor driving PEV purchases. The widespread transportation electrification California needs in order to Verified
residential charging will provide maximum availability to help cost-effectively meet Governor Brown’s goal of procuring half the state’s electricity from renewable resources by 2030. Workplace and home charging are needed to make this possible; PEVs that are not connected to the grid cannot support the grid.” D.16-01-045, VGI Pilot Guiding Principle 4: “Must provide electric vehicle (EV) drivers the opportunity to maximize fuel cost savings relative to conventional transportation fuels.” D.16-01-045: “Finding of Fact 17. SDG&E’s day-ahead hourly VGI rates will correspond with the expected changing hourly price of electricity and will be designed to encourage EV charging at times of the day that will minimize incremental peak loads on the electrical distribution system, integrate high levels of renewable energy use, and avoid charging on system peaks.” D.16-01-045, VGI Pilot Terms Appendix B: Research Plan will include: “Under the VGI Rate-to-Host, load management plans and pricing or fees, including those measures taken that encourage the facilitation of the integration of renewable energy Estimates of fuel cost savings through the use of the VGI Facility, under both the VGI Rate-to-Driver and VGI Rate-to-Host pricing plans” (D) The Importance of Both Workplaces and Multi-Unit Dwellings In rebuttal testimony and in hearings, and subsequent filings, NRDC provided extensive evidence to support deployment in both dwellings and workplaces, supported by See NRDC Rebuttal Testimony, April 13, 2015, p. 4-8. See Brief of Public Interest, Automaker, And Labor Groups on Proposed Vehicle-Grid Integration Settlement Agreement, filed by NRDC on September 4, 2015, p. 2-8. Both the settlement agreement and retained the focus on both workplaces and multi-unit dwellings. (Settlement Agreement, p. 4) Verified, see page 12 of D. 16-01-045 and Attachment 2, Page 4 of D. 16-01-045
Specific Claim:* Claimed CPUC Award ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $ M. Baumhefner Attorney 2013 37.25 $225 D.15-09-020 $8,381.25 37.25 $225 $8,381.25 M. Baumhefner Attorney 2014 78.00 $225 D.15-09-020 $17,550.00 78 $225 $17,550.00 M. Baumhefner Attorney 2015 154.0 $235 D.15-09-020 $36,190.00 154 $235 $36,190.00 M. Baumhefner Attorney 2016 17.75 $240 D.15-09-020 and Resolution ALJ-329 $4,260.00 17.75 $240 $4,260.00 Subtotal: $66,381 Subtotal: $66,381.25 INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION ** Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate Total $ M. Baumhefner Attorney 2016 4 $120 Half of 2016 Rate $480 4 $120 $480 Subtotal: $480 Subtotal: $480 TOTAL REQUEST: $66,861 TOTAL AWARD: $66,861.25 *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 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 typically compensated at ½ of preparer’s normal hourly rate ATTORNEY INFORMATION Attorney Date Admitted to CA BAR Member Number Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?) Max Baumhefner July, 2010 270816 no