13. Identify Final Decision: D1801022 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 1-16-2018 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: 3-5-18 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). (For each contribution, support with specific reference to the record.) Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion 1. Retirement of Diablo Canyon: Economic Arguments for Early Retirement: WEM presented evidence and analysis showing that as PG&E's bundled load decreases, more of DCPP power will need to be sold at a loss on the wholesale market. Quoting WEM's work, D1801022 acknowledges "the potential for significant costs that could be incurred between now and 2024/25 …" Citations to WEM's Work: See WEM Cross-examination of PG&E witness Janice (by Robert Freehling): "Q: …[w]ould there be additional generation … from Diablo Canyon that is not from the bundled load in 2025? A: If Diablo Canyon actually generated energy, there would be excess energy. Q: And what would be done with that energy? A: It would be sold into the market. Q: Okay. And do you know about what price that would command on the open market? A: … I don't remember those specific numbers off the top right now. We have done some analysis for that. Q: Do you know if those numbers that you would sell the power for is equal to or less than the cost of generation? A: It's actually less than. Q: It is less than. So in effect, you are saying that every kilowatt hour or megawatt hour that PG&E that's excess on the margin, essentially you're losing money relative to Verified
Matters, d. 6-16-17, p.1. Citations to D1801022: "WEM points out that as PG&E's bundled load decreases, more of Diablo Canyon's output will need to be sold at a loss on the wholesale market, and that: 'This foreseeable development will make continued operation of Diablo Canyon increasingly uneconomic and dysfunctional, and this will likely begin to happen before 2020, not 2025.' " D1801022, p.13. "WEM and Mothers for Peace raise valid concerns about the current cost of operating Diablo Canyon, and the potential for significant costs that could be incurred between now and 2024/25 …" D1801022, p.14. 2. Retirement of Diablo Canyon: Advocacy for Retirement Date Earlier than 2024/2025 WEM supported DCPP retirement, but recommended that the plant be retired earlier than the 2024/2025 dates originally requested by PG&E in its Application. Consistent with WEM's advocacy, D1801022, contains language that allows the Commission to consider retirement earlier than 2024/25. Citations to WEM's Work: "[E]arly retirement is feasible. PG&E is clearly on record in this proceeding stating that all the energy can be replaced in the contingency of an early retirement, and that the only concern is the potential effect on greenhouse gas emissions." Opening Brief of Women's Energy Matters, d. 5-26-17, p.2. "WEM recommends: That Diablo be retired as soon as possible, prior to the expiration of its operating licenses …" Opening Brief of Women's Energy Matters, d. 5-26-17, p.22. “Diablo Canyon should be retired as soon as possible, but in no case after it becomes a stranded asset because PG&E’s bundled Verified
what level of GHG-free procurement (if any) may be needed to offset the retirement of Diablo Canyon. D1801022, p. See also Ordering Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of D1801022, which deny PG&E's specific proposals for replacement procurement and order that replacement procurement will be addressed in the IRP proceeding or a proceeding designated by the IRP proceeding. D1801022 at p.59-60. 5. Cost Allocation Issue WEM presented Testimony critiquing PG&E's cost allocation proposal, specifically that costs of Diablo replacement energy be passed on to CCA customers through charges. On February 27, 2017, PGE notified the parties by e-mail that, "[A]fter careful review of the important feedback provided by parties in their January 27, 2017 opening testimony on the Diablo Canyon replacement proposal, PG&E is withdrawing the Diablo Canyon Tranches #2 and #3 replacement proposals, as well as the proposal to implement the Clean Energy Charge to recover the costs associated with Tranches #2 and #3." D1801022 verifies PG&E's withdrawal of cost recovery Citation to WEM's Work: See Attachment 1 to WEM Testimony, "Clean Energy Replacement for California's Retiring Nuclear Plants", (submitted 1-27-17 and entered into the record as WEM-1 on 4-19-17) at pp. 28-29. Citation to D1801022: "On February 27, 2017, PG&E notified the parties that it was withdrawing its request for two of the three tranches of replacement procurement (and associated cost recovery) that it had proposed in its application …" D1801022 at p. 5. Verified
APPENDIX Compensation Decision Summary Information Compensation Decision: D1807021 Modifies Decision? Contribution Decision(s): D1801022 Proceeding(s): A1608006 Author: ALJ Peter Allen Payer(s): Pacific Gas and Electric Company ratepayers Intervenor Information Intervenor Claim Date Amount Requested Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance Women’s Energy Matters March 5, 2018 $94,072.04 $94,499.54 N/A Mathematical errors Advocate Information First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year Hourly Fee Requested Hourly Fee Adopted Robert Freehling Expert WEM $190.00 2016 $190.00 Robert Freehling Expert WEM $195.00 2017 $195.00 Jean Merrigan Advocate WEM $140.00 2016 $140.00 Jean Merrigan Advocate WEM $150.00 2017 $150.00 Jean Merrigan Advocate WEM $150.00 2018 $150.00 (END OF APPENDIX)