settlement agreement, those contributions were numerous. Throughout the settlement process, NRDC led a coalition comprised of the Greenlining Institute, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Plug In America, the Coalition of California Utility Employees, Honda Motor Company, General Motors, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. NRDC’s leadership and coordination of this broad and diverse coalition streamlined the settlement negotiation process and facilitated a near all-party settlement because the coalition negotiated as a block, providing collective, demands and unified edits to settlement documents. 2, Response of Public Interest, Automaker, and Labor Groups to Motions to Consolidate Proceedings, filed by NRDC on April 27, 2015. (B) Utility role in transportation electrification investments and charging infrastructure ownership Throughout the course of this proceeding, NRDC has been a constant voice in support of an increased role for utility activity to accelerate transportation and for the evaluation of utility proposals on a case-specific basis. NRDC argued that the Commission’s previous requirement of a demonstration of a NRDC Comments, August 29, 2014: “The Commission should consider an increased role for utilities in PEV infrastructure deployment for the reasons detailed in Section II. The role of the utilities should be to accelerate efficient transportation electrification that minimizes adverse impacts to the electrical grid and maximizes benefits to the body of utility customers, as well as facilitating progress toward other clean energy goals adopted by both the Commission and the state of California. NRDC recommends the Commission avoid attempting to define abstract concepts such as “market failures” or to consider the question of utility ownership in a theoretical sense. Whether or not they include utility ownership of charging infrastructure or based 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