Showing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b) or eligible local government entity status (§§ 1802(d), 1802.4): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: A.17-01-012 Verified 6. Date of ALJ ruling: April 24, 2017 Verified 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status? Yes Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b)) 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: A. A.17-01-012 Verified 10. Date of ALJ ruling: A April 24, 2017 Verified 11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Yes Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: D.17-11-033 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: December 6, 2017 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: February 5, 2018 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes 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. Through this application SDG&E sought recovery of $379 million due to uninsured losses that resulted from wildfires ignited by SDG&E equipment in 2007. SDG&E had claimed that even PREPARED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER GERSHUNOV, Ph.D. ON BEHALF OF THE UTILITY CONSUMERS’ ACTION NETWORK (UCAN) – Parts 1 and Part 2 Verified
of the proceeding. The scope of Phase 1 is as follows: (1) Whether any of the Threshold Issues serves as a bar to recovery; and (2) Whether SDG&E’s operation, engineering and management the facilities alleged to have been involved in the ignition of the fires was reasonable. Each of the three fires should be addressed separately. Scoping memo, p. 6 4. Foreseeability - UCAN argued that Santa Ana wind conditions are a known local condition and SDG&E was on notice that fires ignited by electrical equipment, in strong Santa Ana wind conditions, could have devastating impacts. SDG&E should have been on notice from prior wildfires in its service territory (i.e., the 2003 Cedar fire) that they can lead to catastrophic damage. UCAN argued that SDG&E failed to prudently manage their facilities connected to the 2007 wildfires and that cost recovery should be denied. SDG&E has been providing electric service to San Diego County residents for over a century. Their managers should be very familiar with how Santa Ana wind events, which occur every year, could down power lines and ignite wildfires. In a Commission proceeding involving the 2003 Cedar fire that devastated San Diego County, SDG&E sought recovery for costs incurred in restoring their system in the fires’ aftermath. Even though SDG&E’s equipment was not involved in the ignition of the 2003 Cedar wildfire, SDG&E was put on notice years prior to the wildfires at issue in this proceeding that ignited wildfires UCAN opening brief, p. 3 “Henricks, MGRA, UCAN and POC assert that the fact that SDG&E had prior experience with catastrophic fires, renders SDG&E imprudent when SDG&E failed to adequately address the faults on TL 637.100 Verified D.17-11-033, p.25
parties. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: In this proceeding UCAN’s advocacy helped contribute to the Commission’s denial of SDG&E’s application thereby saving the ratepayers $379 million. The costs for UCAN’s participation, including for the hours for UCAN’s Executive Director, and the hours for two weather experts on wind totals $233,381.38. UCAN believes that our presentation helped inform the Commission of critical issues and provide value to the record. In our NOI we estimated the costs of our participation at $198,750.00. A large cost component of our claim is that UCAN was the intervenor that dealt with the complex wind related issues in this proceeding. In testimony SDG&E had put forward their own wind exerts who conducted modeling ad wind tunnel analysis of wind events surrounding the 2007 fires. To counter SDG&E’s weather experts, UCAN hired two wind experts who examined SDG&E’s wind analysis from different perspectives, and they produced 3 volumes of testimony. In the Decision, the Commission noted the following: “Because we find the methodologies that UCAN’s experts utilized in developing its testimony to be more consistent with the actual weather and wind conditions in San Diego County in October 2007, the Commission does not find that the 2007 Wildfires were spread under unprecedented wind and weather conditions.” Given the help that UCAN’s participation provided to the Commission, we believe that our request of $233,381.38 is reasonable and justified. Travel/lodging costs As can be seen from UCAN’s timesheets, Mr. Kelly traveled to the Commission for both a prehearing conference and for evidentiary hearings. In order to minimize expenses, for the times when Mr. Kelly went to the Commission for more than one proceeding, he sought to divide the costs between the cases. Also, in order to save on lodging, Mr. Kelly, when traveling to the Commission for a multi-day appearance (i.e., evidentiary hearings) he seeks to avoid lodging expenses by staying with CPUC Discussion Verified