8. Assignment of Proceeding
Dian M. Grueneich is the assigned Commissioner, and David M. Gamson is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. UCAN has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to claim compensation in the proceeding.
2. UCAN made a substantial contribution to D.07-04-043, as described herein.
3. UCAN requested hourly rates for attorneys and experts, and related expenses, that, as adjusted herein, are reasonable when compared to the market rates for persons with similar training and experience.
4. The total of the reasonable compensation is $254,324.
5. The appendix to this opinion summarizes today's award.
1. UCAN has fulfilled the requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812, which govern awards of intervenor compensation, and is entitled to intervenor compensation for its claimed compensation, as adjusted herein, incurred in making substantial contributions to D.07-04-043.
2. UCAN should be awarded $254,324.00 for its contribution to D.07-04-043.
3. This order should be effective today so that UCAN may be compensated without further delay.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) is awarded $254,324 as compensation for its substantial contributions to Decision 07-04-043.
2. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall pay UCAN the total award. Payment of the award shall include interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month commercial paper as
reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning July 10, 2007, the 75th day after the filing date of UCAN's request for compensation, and continuing until full payment is made.
3. Application 05-03-015 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated April 16, 2009, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
Commissioners
I reserve the right to file a dissent.
/s/ DIAN GRUENEICH
Commissioner
APPENDIX A
Compensation Decision Summary Information
Compensation Decision: |
D0904031 |
Modifies Decision? No |
Contribution Decision(s): |
D0704043 | |
Proceeding(s): |
A0503015 | |
Author: |
ALJ Gamson | |
Payer(s): |
San Diego Gas & Electric Company | |
Intervenor Information
Intervenor |
Claim Date |
Amount Requested |
Amount Awarded |
Multiplier? |
Reason Change/Disallowance |
Utility Consumers' Action Network |
April 26, 2007 |
$466,309.41 |
$254,324 |
No |
Adjust Smart Grid Study Costs; hourly rate adjustments |
Advocate Information
First Name |
Last Name |
Type |
Intervenor |
Hourly Fee Requested |
Year Hourly Fee Requested |
Hourly Fee Adopted |
Michael |
Shames |
Attorney |
Utility Consumers' Action Network |
$310 |
2005, 2006, 2007 |
$310 |
William |
Marcus |
Expert |
Utility Consumers' Action Network |
$220 |
2006 |
$220 |
$235 |
2007 |
$220 | ||||
Gayatri |
Schilberg |
Expert |
Utility Consumers' Action Network |
$150 |
2005 |
$150 |
$175 |
2006 |
$165 | ||||
$185 |
2007 |
$175 | ||||
Jeffrey |
Nahigian |
Expert |
Utility Consumers' Action Network |
$140 |
2005 |
$140 |
$155 |
To March, 2006 |
$155 | ||||
$165 |
2006 |
$165 | ||||
$175 |
2007 |
$165 | ||||
Greg |
Ruszovan |
Expert |
Utility Consumers' Action Network |
$165 |
2006 |
$165 |
(END OF APPENDIX A)
A.05-03-015
D.09-04-031
Dissent of Commissioner Grueneich
This Decision awards the Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) $460,324 in intervenor compensation for its substantial contributions to Decision 07-04-043(AMI Decision). The AMI Decision adopted an all party settlement in Phase II of the proceeding and approved the application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) to implement its advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) program.
The AMI Decision finds that the settlement between SDG&E, UCAN, and DRA on implementation and funding of AMI deployment, is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest. Among other things, the settlement required SDG&E to add functionality to SDG&E's AMI proposal in order to increase its cost-effectiveness and established an AMI technology advisory panel to review SDG&E's AMI deployment and new developments in AMI technologies.
The principal difference in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) proposed decision and today's Decision is whether UCAN can recover the cost of a study cosponsored by SDG&E and UCAN and conducted by University of San Diego (Smart Grid Study) on AMI functionality. The Study was summarized in the UCAN testimony and submitted into the formal record of this case as an exhibit. The Smart Grid Study was used by UCAN to argue that the scope of SDG&E's AMI application was unduly narrow and additional functionality would benefit ratepayers.
The ALJ's proposed decision awards UCAN compensation for its share of the costs of the Smart Grid Study. The Study was jointly sponsored and paid for by UCAN and SDG&E and SDG&E has recovered its share of the Study costs in its rates.
The final decision adopted by this Commission cites UCAN's contributions throughout the analysis of SDG&E's proposal. The Commission also acknowledges the contribution of the Smart Grid Study in addressing possible applications of AMI and technologies that went beyond the specific proposal advocated by SDG&E. Several of these improvements were integrated into the settlement agreement agreed to by SDG&E.
It is undisputed that the Smart Grid Study contributed to the resolution of this case and resulted in revisions to SDG&E's original proposal and that these revisions created additional benefits for SDG&E ratepayers. Consequently, UCAN's request for recovery of the Smart Grid Study costs is unopposed by any party in the case and approved by the administrative law judge who was the presiding officer for this proceeding.
The Decision approved today asserts with little support that the Study did not contribute substantially to the AMI Decision. In doing so, the Decision proposes to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the presiding officer who oversaw two weeks of hearings and multiple rounds of testimony and comments, the parties to this year long case, and indeed, the utility whose project UCAN was criticizing. It should also be noted, that our rules do not require that an intervenor's position be adopted in whole or in part in order to receive intervenor compensation. The rule is not whether the intervenor has "won" on the issue, but rather whether the contribution to the debate on the issues has been substantial. If this Commission does not like this rule, we can change it. However, we should do so in an orderly fashion through a rulemaking, not through spot rejections of valid requests.
SDG&E supports the UCAN request for three reasons. First, SDG&E states that it would not have developed the Study in the absence of UCAN's advocacy. Second, the Study was directly utilized in the settlement of the proceeding and substantially contributed to the outcome of the case. Finally, SDG&E states the Study has proven useful to the on-going review of the AMI deployment by SDG&E's technical advisory panel.
David Gamson, the ALJ in this case, has carefully reviewed the issues presented in this request and fully considered the unusual, and even unorthodox, circumstances of this case. The ALJ's proposed decision has been subjected to a level of scrutiny by the ALJ Division that is highly unusual for intervenor compensation requests. After a great deal of review and discussion, the conclusion of Judge Gamson and management in the ALJ division is that compensation is warranted by the intervenor compensation statute and the facts of this case, and that the circumstances presented here are so specific to this case that it is unlikely to result in a large number of similar requests. As the Assigned Commissioner to the SDG&E AMI case, I concur.
In my personal experience of over 30 years of practice, joint submissions by opposing parties on technical questions at issue in a case are virtually unheard of, and I can guarantee that it is unlikely to happen with any regularity. I also note that it is very helpful in these highly technical cases to establish an informed, objective technical baseline to guide the debate and the decision making. Such initiatives to expand our administrative record beyond partisan arguments should be encouraged, not discouraged in these very limited circumstances.
This Study did generate benefits for ratepayers and SDG&E was able to recover its share of the Study costs. But for UCAN advocacy, this Study would never have been developed and this Commission would have not had the benefit of the robust record in this case. I dissent.
April 16, 2009
/s/ DIAN M. GRUENEICH
Dian M. Grueneich, Commissioner
