Intervenor CPUC Verified Timely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference (PHC): June 12, 2015 Verified 2. Other specified date for NOI: n/a 3. Date NOI filed: July 9, 2015 Verified 4. Was the NOI timely filed? Yes 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.16-12-065 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 21, 2016 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: February 21, 2017 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, Size, Scope, & Budget NRDC engaged on all issues involved in this application in the formal proceedings and led negotiations that resulted in the Settlement Agreement detailing the D.16-02-065: “On March 21, 2016, PG&E, American Honda Motor Co., CUE, General Motors LLC, Greenlining, Marin Clean Energy, NRDC, Plug In America, the Sierra Club, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Greenlots, the Center for Sustainable Energy, and Sonoma Clean Power (collectively, the Settling Parties) executed the Settlement Agreement and filed their “Joint Motion for Adoption of Verified
in the next column. “Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) will provide a 100 percent rebate to the site host for the base costs of the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) at Multiple Unit Dwelling sites that are Disadvantaged Communities….” (C) Load Management and Fuel Cost Savings In almost every one of the substantive filings and written testimony documents filed or served in this proceeding, NRDC has consistently called for the use of appropriate price signals to 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 also argued the Commission should avoid locking down a single technological pathway to achieved load management, to the exclusion of other potentially more solutions. The final decision retained the flexibility to use the load management capabilities of “smart” charging stations, or other technological means of accomplishing the same end result. See Testimony of Max Baumhefner on Behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition of California Utility Employees, The Greenlining Institute, and Plug In America, November 30, 2015, p. 16-18, section IV(F): “Widespread and Intelligently Integrated Vehicle Charging Could Lower Electric Rates for All Utility Customers” and section IV(G): “Managed Charging is Needed to Realize the Vision of Efficient Transportation Electrification.” Ordering Paragraph 14. “Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) shall offer site hosts a choice between the Time of Use (TOU) Rate-to-Host option as well as the TOU Rate-to-Driver option: Under the “TOU Rate-to-Driver” option, PG&E will serve electricity to the site host or their service provider who will then pass the TOU price signals directly to Electric Vehicle drivers to ensure that drivers who charge in a manner that supports the Program Guiding Principles. Under the “TOU Rate-to-Host” option, the Site Hosts will receive the TOU signals and will be able to propose alternative pricing and load management tactics consistent with Program Guiding Principles.” NRDC contributed significantly to the Settling Party comments on the PD, arguing for a reversal of the PD’s delegation of decision-making authority over the reasonableness of load management plans to the Program Advisory Council: “While the PD retains the load management plan structure specified in the settlement Verified effective
Less costly electrical service due to improved integration of renewable generation that will result from using time-of-use rates as a foundation for load management upon which more sophisticated forms of load will be evaluated to identify an “Advanced EV Grid Support” program to be deployed in Phase 2; Less costly electrical service due to the improved use of the electric system that will result from price signals and other load management strategies that shift EV load to hours of the day when there is spare capacity in the grid; and Less costly electrical service due to the improved use of the electric system that will result from leveraging PG&E’s Distributed Resource Plan Integration Capacity Analysis to improve site selection. D.16-12-065, p. 20: “The Settling Parties go on to argue that, consistent with the Settlement Agreement will, under § 740.8(b): Promote the accelerated adoption of EVs which will promote the efficiency of travel; Reduce the health and environmental impacts from air pollution because vehicle electrification results in “over 85 percent fewer ozone-forming air pollutants emitted;” For every mile driven on electricity in a typical EV, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by a factor of four relative to the average new conventional vehicle in PG&E service territory; Deploy EV charging stations that will increase the use of an alternative fuel; and Create high-quality jobs or other
Specific Claim:* Claimed CPUC Award ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $ M. Baumhefner Attorney 2015 130 $235 D.15-09-020 $30,550 130 $235.00 $30,550.00 M. Baumhefner Attorney 2016 131 $240 D.15-09-020 and Resolution $31,440 131 $240.00 $31,440.00 Subtotal: $61,990.00 Subtotal: $61,990.00 INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION ** Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate Total $ M. Baumhefner Attorney 2017 4 $120 Half of 2016 Rate $480 4 $120 $480.00 Subtotal: $480 Subtotal: $480.00 TOTAL REQUEST: $62,470.00 TOTAL AWARD: $62,470.00 *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 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