Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: D.18-01-022 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: January 16, 2018 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: March 15, 2018 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes Additional Comments on Part I: # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion 5. A4NR’s current Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws establishing its customer status were attached to its Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation in this proceeding. Noted PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION: Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion 1. A4NR was one of several Joint Parties that negotiated the terms and conditions of the Joint Proposal presented in the PG&E application. Notably, as the primary critic of PG&E’s seismic re-evaluation of DCNPP, A4NR agreed in the Joint Proposal to withdraw its pending objections and recommendations regarding PG&E’s recovery of costs in the Diablo Canyon Seismic Studies Balancing Account in PG&E’s 2014 and 2015 ERRA proceedings A4NR’s contributions to the record regarding, and the Commission’s disposition of, PG&E’s request to retire DCNPP are reflected in Application 16-08-006, at pp.1 to 4, and 7 to 8, and Attachment A (Joint Proposal, at p. 12); also, Decision 16-12-045, at pp. 7 to 8, in Application 14-02-008 (re Joint Motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) and the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility to Set Aside Submission and Reopen the Record Under Rule 13.14 (July 27, 2016), and Protest of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (September 14, 2016), at pp.2 to 3); Prepared Direct Testimony of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility Verified
arising from its participation in the PG&E 2018 general rate case. This stipulation prescribed procedures under which rate changes related to DCNPP capital expenditures would be treated. Essentially, these procedures addressed the true-up of forecasted DCNPP capital projects to actual capital expenditures, with corresponding adjustments to DCNPP net plant-in-service, annual depreciation expense, and other capital-related revenue requirements. The A4NR-PG&E Stipulation was augmented by a later settlement agreement to encompass cancelled capital projects specifically. This settlement limits cost recovery for cancelled DCNPP capital projects to 25 percent of PG&E’s capital expenditures incurred after June 30, 2016 (the date the Joint Proposal was executed) and the waiver of cost recovery for any AFUDC accruals associated with a cancelled project. disposition of issues related to, the true-up of DCNPP capital-related revenue requirements and treatment of the costs of cancelled projects are reflected in Application at pp.11 and 14; Attachment A (Joint Proposal); Prepared Direct Testimony of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (Exhibit A4NR-1), at pp.39 to 41 and Appendix (Stipulation Between PG&E and A4NR Regarding Annual Diablo Canyon Revenue Requirement Tier 3 Advice Letter); Joint Motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U39E), the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, etc., for Adoption of Settlement Agreement Regarding License Renewal Project and Cancelled Project Cost Recovery at Diablo Canyon (May 23, 2017), at pp.3, 5, 9 to 10, 15 to 18, and Attachment 1 (Settlement Agreement at pp.3 and 4 to 7); Opening Brief of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (May 26, 2017), at pp.14 to 17; and, Opening Comments of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility on the Proposed Decision of ALJ Allen, at pp.4 to 5. Decision 18-01-022 substantially approved the terms of the Stipulation and subsequent settlement agreement related to DCNPP capital expenditures and cancelled projects, subject to modifications as to the timing of the filing of the true-up (i.e., from annual advice letters to the next PG&E general rate case), at pp.46 to 47, 47 to 48, 58 (Finding 11), 59 (Conclusion of Law 9), and 60 (Order 12).
perspective, that the result was “[b]ased on the specific facts presented” in this proceeding (at pp.33 and 54, footnote 26), which responded to legal arguments submitted by A4NR and others regarding the breadth of the Commission’s ratemaking authority by limiting the precedential effects of the Commission’s order for future proposals (e.g., presumably those that may be developed from the studies being conducted under the aegis of Public Utilities Code Section 712.5, the interpretation of which remains a matter of first impression under the Commission’s decision as written (noted at p.32 footnote 17)). Decision of ALJ Allen, at pp.1 to 4. Decision 18-01-022 denied funding for the program, but did so subject to reservations preserving the Commission’s ability to consider a community impacts program under express legislative authorizations and/or in light of new facts and circumstances that might be developed as part of the Commission’s study of community impacts being conducted pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 712.5, at pp.32 footnote 17, 33, 41, and 54 footnote 26. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s Assertion CPUC Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding? Yes Verified b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Verified c. If so, provide name of other parties: The Joint Parties (PG&E, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environment California, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245, and the Coalition of California Utility Employees), the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (“SLOMFP”), The Utility Reform Network (“TURN”), and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (“ORA”). Concur d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: i. A4NR’s Positions in Support of the Joint Proposal: Noted; However, only parts of the Joint
charges also include the costs of negotiating and supporting the settlement agreement related to this issue; “CAP” (Capital Expenditure True-Up and Cancelled Projects) – 6.1 % (80.53 hours) These hourly charges are related to A4NR’s contribution to the ratemaking conventions adopted for DCNPP capital expenditures and cancelled projects. These charges include A4NR’s time spent in negotiating and executing the PG&E-A4NR Stipulation and the settlement agreement addressing these matters; “CIMP (Community Impacts Mitigation Program) – 8.2% (107.16 hours) These hourly charges are related to A4NR’s support of the Joint Proposal program proposing to address the potential adverse impacts local communities are expected to suffer as a direct result of DCNPP’s retirement; “GP” (Time Spent in Necessary Preparation for A4NR’s Effective Participation but Not Related to any Specific or Single Issue) – 25.1% of total (329.45 hours) These charges include time spent in preparation for A4NR’s participation and preparation generally, including time spent reviewing PG&E’s application and third-party filings to determine their relevance to A4NR’s positions and recommendation. This also included time spent collaborating with other parties, including PG&E, regarding common issues or agreements to avoid duplication and overlap on matters tangential, but not central, to A4NR’s recommendations. This category also includes travel time related to the administration of A4NR’s participation (e.g., attendance at the prehearing conference and public participation hearings, except that no time is charged for the nonproductive travel time of A4NR’s attorney per the terms of his engagement with A4NR); travel time is claimed at half the otherwise requested hourly rate and amounts to 207.79 hours out of a total 329.45 hours allocated to this category. Specific Claim:* Claimed CPUC Award ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate $ Total $ Alvin Pak, attorney 2016 139.2 $575 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 1 below and Attachment 5) 80,040.00 139.20 $575.00 [E] $80,040.00
Alvin Pak, attorney 2017 271.1 $585 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 1 below and Attachment 5) 158,593.50 271.10 $585.00 [F] $158,593.50 Alvin Pak, attorney 2018 3.8 $585 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 1 below and Attachment 5) 2,223.00 1.50 [A] $585.00 [G] $877.50 John Geesman Attorney 2014 288.82 $570 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 7 below) 164,627.40 144.41 [D] $570.00 $82,313.70 John Geesman Attorney 2014 31.76 $570 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 7 below) 18,103.20 15.88 [D] $570.00 $9,051.60 John Geesman Attorney 2015 .35 $570 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 7 below) 199.50 0.18 [D] $570.00 $102.60 John Geesman Attorney 2015 399.56 $570 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 7 below) 227,749.20 199.75 [D] $570.00 $113,857.50 John Geesman Attorney 2016 0.2 $580 Decision (see Comment 7 below) 116.00 0.10 [D] $580.00 [H] $58.00 John Geesman Attorney 2016 53.48 $580 Decision (see Comment 2 below) 31,018.40 88.12 [B] & [D] $580.00 $51,109.60 John Geesman Attorney 2017 14.46 $590 Decision (see Comment 2 below) 8,531.40 46.95 [B] $590.00 [I] $27,700.50 John 2016 52.31 $425 Decision 22,231.75 0.00 $425.00 $0.00
policy and financial expert witness and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 2 below) [C] John policy and financial expert 2017 31.34 $435 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 2 below) 13,632.90 0.00 [C] $435.00 $0.00 John policy and financial expert 2018 .78 $435 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 2 below) 339.30 0.00 [A] $435.00 $0.00 Richard Wolfe, 2016 77.42 $425 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 6 below and Attachment 6) 32,903.50 77.42 $425.00 [K] $32,903.50 Richard Wolfe, 2017 67.70 $435 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 3 below and Attachment 6) 29,449.50 67.70 $435.00 [L] $29,449.50 Ellen Wolfe, economic 2016 2.45 $425 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 3 below and Attachment 7) 1,041.25 2.45 $425.00 [N] $1,041.25 Dr. Douglas Geologic 2014 74 $250 Decision and Resolution ALJ 281 (see Comments 6 and 7 below) 18,500.00 37.00 [D] $250.00 [U] $9,250.00 Dr. Douglas Geologic 2014 28 $250 Decision and Resolution ALJ 281 (see Comments 6 and 7 below) 7,000.00 14.00 [D] $250.00 [U] $3,500.00 Hamilton Hamilton
Dr. Douglas Geologic 2015 44 $250 Decision and Resolution ALJ 281 (see Comment 7) 11,000.00 22.00 [D] $250.00 [V] $5,500.00 Rochelle Becker, expert witness and advocate 2014 44.18 $140 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comments 4 and 6 below) 6185.20 22.09 [D] $140.00 $3,092.60 Rochelle Becker, expert witness and advocate 2014 4.8 $140 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comments 4 and 7 below) 672.00 2.40 [D] $140.00 $336.00 Rochelle Becker, expert witness and advocate 2015 64.28 $140 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comments 4 and 7 below) 8,999.20 32.14 [D] $140.00 $4,499.60 Rochelle Becker, expert witness and advocate 2016 77.86 $140 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 4 below) 10,900.40 21.38 [B] & [D] $140.00 [O] $2,993.20 Rochelle Becker, expert witness and advocate 2017 90.91 $145 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 4 below) 13,181.95 94.76 [B] $145.00 [P] $13,740.20 Rochelle Becker, expert witness and advocate 2018 3.7 $145 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 4 below) 536.50 0.00 [A] $145.00 [Q] $0.00 David advocate 2014 106.21 $85 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see 9027.85 53.11 [D] $85.00 $4,514.35 Hamilton
(travel time at half of hourly rate) John Attorney (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2015 22.00 285 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 7 below) 6,270.00 11.00 [D] $285.00 $3,135.00 John Attorney (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2014 8.00 285 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 7 below) 2,280.00 4.00 [D] $285.00 $1,140.00 John policy and financial expert (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2016 7.14 212.50 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 2 below) 1,517.25 0.00 [C] $212.50 $0.00 Richard Wolfe, (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2016 15.0 212.50 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 3 below and Attachment 6) 3,187.50 15.00 $212.50 $3,187.50 Richard Wolfe, 2017 14.5 217.5 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 3 3,153.75 14.50 $217.50 $3,153.75
(travel time at half of hourly rate) below and Attachment 6) Rochelle Becker, Advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2014 1.5 $70 Decision and Resolution ALJ-329 (see Comment 4 below) 105.00 0.75 [D] $70.00 $52.50 Rochelle Becker, Advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2015 12 70 Decision and Resolution ALJ-329 (see Comment 4 below) 840.00 6.00 [D] $70.00 $420.00 Rochelle Becker, advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2016 54.65 $70 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 4 below) 3825.50 54.65 $70.00 $3,825.50 Rochelle Becker, advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2017 42.5 $72.50 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 4 below) 3081.25 42.50 $72.50 $3,081.25 David advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2014 15 $42.50 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comments 5 and 7 below) 637.50 7.50 [D] $42.50 $318.75 Weisman
David advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2014 3.5 $42.50 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comments 5 and 7 below) 148.75 1.75 [D] $42.50 $74.38 David advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2015 21.0 $42.50 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comments 5 and 7 below) 892.50 10.50 [D] $42.50 $446.25 David advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2016 16.0 $62.50 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 5 below) 1000.00 16.00 $62.50 $1,000.00 David advocate (travel time at half of hourly rate) 2017 35.5 $65.00 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 5 below) 2,307.50 35.50 $65.00 $2,307.50 Subtotal: $35,826.50 Subtotal: $28,722.38 INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION ** Item Year Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours Rate Total $ Alvin Pak (at half of hourly rate) 2018 13.7 $292.50 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 1 below and Attachment 5) 4,007.25 15.20 [B] $292.50 $4,446.00 Weisman Weisman Weisman Weisman
John Geesman (at half of hourly rate) 2018 4.20 $295.00 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 2 below) 1,239.00 0.00 [C] $295.00 [J] $0.00 John Geesman (at half of hourly rate) 2015 .67 $235 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345; see Comment 7 below 157.45 0.34 [D] $235.00 $79.90 John Geesman (at half of hourly rate) 2014 .67 $235 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345; see Comment 6 below 157.45 0.34 [D] $235.00 $79.90 Richard Wolfe (at half of hourly rate) 2018 4.75 $217.50 Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 3 below and Attachment 6) 1,033.13 0.00 [C] $217.50 [M] $0.00 Rochelle Becker (at half of hourly rate) 2018 2.0 $72.5 Decision and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 4 below) 145.00 2.00 $72.50 $145.00 David (at half of hourly rate) 2018 6.0 $65 Decision 15-11-014 and Resolution ALJ-345 (see Comment 5 below) 390.00 6.00 $65.00 $390.00 Subtotal: $7,129.28 Subtotal: $5,140.80 COSTS # Item Detail Amount Amount 1. Printing and copying Printing and copying of various filings and documents (see itemization in Attachment 4, receipts $1,106.85 $1,106.85