apply to this proceeding, which started more than 3 years after that ruling. 11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): See also D.16-11-017 D.16-11-017 issued in It did not make a finding of significant financial hardship pursuant to Section 1802(h) but relied on the July 19, 2011 ruling, via rebuttable presumption, pursuant to Section 1804(b). That presumption has expired and is no longer valid. See CPUC Discussion in Part I(C). 12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? Clean Coalition has demonstrated significant financial hardship under the specific circumstances of this proceeding. See CPUC Discussion in Part I(C). Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)): 13. Identify Final Decision: Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 12/22/2016, 9/22/2015 09/22/2015, 12/22/2016 15. File date of compensation request: 2/16/2017 2/16/2017 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes Additional Comments on Part I: # Intervenor’s Comment(s) CPUC Discussion The Clean Coalition sought a new finding of significant financial hardship in this proceeding through our NOI filed on December 26, 2014, and our Amended NOI filed on April 2, 2015. However, the Commission did not issue a ruling on our Clean Coalition (CC) filed two NOIs in this proceeding – on December 26, 2014 and January 2, 2015. A ruling of March 3, 2015 requested additional information to support CC’s customer status and significant financial hardship. CC’s Amended NOI of April 2, 2015 (April 2, 2015 NOI) responded to the ruling by providing factual information on CC’s activities and funding. No ruling on the amended NOI issued. In another proceeding, R.14-07-002, on March 9, 2015, CC provided similar information as on April 2, 2015 in this docket. In that proceeding, D.16-05-049 (issued on May 26, 2016) found that CC has demonstrated significant financial hardship. B.
Amended NOI. We therefore include this citation to a recent intervenor compensation reward that affirmed Clean Coalition’s showing of significant financial hardship. The Commission has begun to analyze closely CC’s activities and funding at the end of 2015, in other proceedings. On November 9, 2015, in A.15-02-009, CC filed an amended NOI, providing new information and more facts demonstrating CC’s work for the corporations in the renewable energy industries and markets. The June 30, 2016 ruling in A.15-02-009 determined that CC had become ineligible for compensation. CC’s motion to reconsider the ruling was denied. We find it appropriate to grant this claim, based on the finding of eligibility in D.16-05-049 (R.14.07-002), rather than denying the claim based on the findings of CC’s ineligibility made in A.15-02-009. We find it fair to the intervenor because between the filing of its April 2, 2015 NOI in this proceeding and the Ruling of June 30, 2016 in A.15-02-009 that analyzed new facts and rejected the NOI, CC was participating in this proceeding without a warning that CC is not eligible to claim compensation. 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 Participation in the Competitive Solicitation Framework Working Group (“Working Group”) The Clean Coalition participated in the Working Group, including several sub-groups, and contributed to the Competitive Solicitation Framework Working Group Final Report. The Clean Coalition’s oral and written contributions shaped the final report, which the Commission referenced and adopted parts of in the final decision. Positions the Clean Coalition took in the Working Group include: Ensuring that the pilot and the Working Group’s efforts work towards developing See D.16-12-036 at 6. See Competitive Solicitation Framework Working Group Final Report Filed by Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902-E), and Southern California Gas Company (U 904-G) at 7 (Aug. 1, 2016). Verified
solicitations and pro forma contracts; Establishing the services to be procured using the Framework; Coordination with the locational valuation occurring within Establishing potential valuation components and principles for valuation; Ensuring proper Commission oversight of the competitive solicitation through Advice Letters and advisory group participation; Allowing market participants to participate in parts of the Distribution Planning Advisory Group; and Maintaining as much transparency as allowed by prior Commission decisions in the bid evaluation process. Pilot design The Clean Coalition advocated for several positions that were not directly adopted in the final decision but did contribute to the Commission’s reasoning. For example, the Clean Coalition urged to Commission to: Issue a roadmap describing the Commission’s planned process for comprehensive business model reform; Ensure that either a new Distribution Planning D.16-12-036 at 24, 34, 42–44, 50, 53. Comments of Clean Coalition on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Introducing a Draft Regulatory Incentives Proposal at 2–12 (May 9, 2016). Reply Comments of Clean Coalition on Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling Introducing a Draft Regulatory Incentives Proposal at 2–6 (May 23, 2015). Clean Coalition Comments on Revised Regulatory Incentive Mechanism Pilot Proposal at 2–8 (Sept. 15, 2016). Verified
Sahm White Katie Ramsey 2016 5.00 $205 $1,025.00 5.00 $205.00 $1,025.00 Subtotal: $ 69,338.75 Subtotal: $ 69,338.75 Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Rate Total $ Brian Korpics 2017 5.5 $563.75 5.50 $102.50 $563.75 Subtotal: $563.75 Subtotal: $ 563.75 TOTAL REQUEST: $ 69,902.50 TOTAL AWARD: $ 69,902.50 **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?) If “Yes”, attach explanation Brian Korpics June 2, 2015 303480 No Katherine Ramsey February 11, 2015 302532 No Attachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III: Attachment or Comment # Description/Comment 1 Certificate of Service 2 Clean Coalition Time Records
Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning May 2, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Clean Coalition’s request, and continuing until full payment is made. The comment period for today’s decision is waived. This decision is effective today. Dated __________________, at San Francisco, California.