additional chargers (should use data from initial deployment warrant this). [GPI Brief, 6/17/16, pg. 4.] GPI has made the case in our opening brief that PG&E’s pilot should be distinguished by the degree to which it includes DCFCs as well as L2 chargers, acknowledging the fact that PG&E has more pure EVs in its territory than the California average as well as the surprisingly robust preorders for the pure EV Tesla Model 3 to be provided to customers starting in late 2017. We reiterate this position here and note that no parties have raised concerns about the specific anti-competitive potential of an increased focus on DCFCs and we feel that this is the case because market participants realize that there is likely to be a booming need for DCFCs in light of many new affordable long-range EVs coming to the market in the next couple of years. [GPI Reply Brief, 7/8/16, pg. 1.] Education and Outreach: PG&E proposed $5 million for “equity programs” that was in addition to the base level of E&O activities proposed. GPI expressed concerns about the vagueness of this $5 million proposal, and urged that the Commission require significant additional detail before approval. Our key stated concern was whether the focus on DACs was warranted given the program’s overarching goal of promoting EV adoption. The GPI was the only Party to comment on this particular topic in PG&E’s proposal. The GPI expressed opposition Decision Section 15 of the Settlement Agreement provides a $5 million set-aside for equity programs supporting Disadvantaged Communities. The Settlement Agreement states that PG&E will “consult with the Program Advisory Council to identify priority areas” and “advance strategies to increase access to EVs in low and moderate income communities.” We find this proposal overly broad; it has no stated objectives or specifications of program requirements. Given this limited record, we are not able to assess whether the set aside would yield any ratepayer benefits. We reject the $5 million set-aside for equity programs. [Decision, pg. 55.] Verified
Subtotal: $2,475.00 Subtotal: $2,062.50 COSTS # Item Detail Amount Amount Mailing costs See attachment # 2 $9.00 $9.00 TOTAL REQUEST: $81,750.00 TOTAL AWARD: $79,650.25 *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?) If “Yes”, attach explanation Tamlyn Hunt Nov. 2001 218673 No PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS 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 Green Power Institute has made a substantial contribution to D.16-12-065. The requested hourly rates for Green Power Institute’s representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. The total of reasonable compensation is $79,650.25.