ALJ/JHE/hkr Date of Issuance 5/7/2010

Decision 10-05-009 May 6, 2010

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of Demand Response Programs, Goals and Budgets for 2009-2011.

Application 08-06-001
(Filed June 2, 2008)

And Related Matters.

Application 08-06-002
Application 08-06-003

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY POWER
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 09-08-027

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY POWER
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 09-08-027 2 2

1. Background 2 2

2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation 5 5

2.1. Preliminary Procedural Issues 6 6

3. Substantial Contribution 7 7

4. Contributions of Other Parties 9 9

5. Reasonableness of SFCP's Requested Compensation 10 10

5.1. SFCP's Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary
for Substantial Contribution 11 11

5.2. Hourly Rates 12 12

5.3. Direct Expenses 14 14

6. Productivity 15 15

7. Award 16 16

8. Comments on Proposed Decision 17 17

9. Assignment of Proceeding 17 17

Findings of Fact 18 18

Conclusions of Law 18 18

ORDER 19 19

APPENDIX

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY POWER
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 09-08-027

This decision awards San Francisco Community Power (SFCP) $17,880.91 for its substantial contributions to Decision 09-08-027. This represents a decrease of $84,062.50 from the amount requested. We deny a portion of the compensation requested by SFCP for several reasons. SFCP's participation was primarily focused on one issue and its participation in this area did not arise directly and solely from its interest as a customer or customer representative. SFCP included time spent advocating in another proceeding in its claim for intervenor compensation for its contribution to Decision 09-08-027. SFCP also requested compensation for clerical work. Finally, SFCP made errors in its time and billing calculations. Today's award payment will be allocated to the affected utilities. This proceeding is closed.

1. Background

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed these applications in June 2008 seeking approval of program plans and budgets for their 2009-2011 demand response programs, and in compliance with Decision (D.) 06-03-024. The Scoping Memo and Ruling, issued November 10, 2008, identified the major issues for Commission consideration as 1) a Bridge Funding Motion, 2) Demand Response Activities, 3) Electric Service Provider Issues, 4) Integrated Demand Side Management Issues, and 4) Potential Evaluation Criteria. As relevant here, PG&E proposed to discontinue the Small Commercial Aggregation Pilot (SCAP) program¹ and replace it with a different program administered by PG&E.

The Bridge Funding Motion requested funding and authorization to operate demand response programs and pilots in 2009. The utilities requested, among other things, that the Commission issue a decision continuing existing demand response programs and allow implementation of certain demand response pilots early in 2009. D.08-12-038 authorized the utilities to continue certain demand response programs through 2009 or until a decision was issued on the programs and budgets for 2009-2011 in the main portion of the proceeding. As relevant here, SFCP's response to the Bridge Funding Motion focused on the utilities' request to provide bridge funding and authority only for programs expected to continue in 2009-2011. SFCP argued that the utilities, by not requesting funding for certain programs, were effectively ending programs before there was a chance for a thorough review of the programs in the context of the full applications. SFCP was specifically concerned that PG&E did not ask for funding for SCAP. SFCP did not address other issues in the Bridge Funding Motion.² D.08-12-038 adopted Bridge Funding for 2009 demand response programs, including SCAP.

On March 10, 2009, PG&E and SFCP participated in a mediation aimed at resolving issues related to PG&E's application and a complaint case filed by SFCP against PG&E.³ On March 25, 2009, PG&E filed a motion to adopt a settlement agreement between PG&E and SFCP resolving issues related to the SCAP program. D.09-08-027 adopted the settlement agreement.

In these proceedings, the Commission considered which programs of each utility should be funded and at what funding level. In addition to existing programs, D.09-08-027 also authorized several demand response pilot programs to test new demand response-related technologies and integration of demand response with Advanced Metering Infrastructure systems. In addition, the Commission provided funding for the evaluation, measurement, and verification of demand response activities, and continued existing cost recovery mechanisms for demand response-related funding. The decision adopted a new methodology for calculating settlement baselines for certain demand response activities and adopted rules on concurrent customer participation in more than one demand response program.

SFCP actively participated in the proceeding by filing pleadings, appearing at the meetings and hearing leading to D.08-12-038, adoption of the settlement agreement and D.09-08-027. In addition to advocating for the continuation of SCAP, SFCP advocated for adoption of a municipal pump load demand response pilot. SFCP also argued that the approval of certain PG&E proposals be contingent on crediting the energy saved by those programs towards the power otherwise provided by certain generators that operate primarily at peak times, within San Francisco, in order to hasten the retirement of those generators. SFCP further recommended that the Commission provide incentives to third parties to enroll customers in available demand response programs in lieu of approving PG&E's proposals for marketing, education and outreach.

Finally, SFCP advocated for various changes to PG&E's Capacity Bidding program and Automated Business Energy Coalition program, the replacement of APX, Inc. as the provider of data and Web-based services for demand response programs, expansion of access to the technical incentives program, termination of the Peak Student Energy Actions program, and consolidation of multiple meters at a single facility in appropriate situations.

SFCP seeks $101,943.41 in compensation for its participation in these proceedings. PG&E filed a protest to granting SFCP intervenor compensation.

¹ San Francisco Community Power (SFCP) administers the SCAP program for PG&E.

² D.08-12-038 at 13.

³ Complaint (C.) 08-10-015 alleged that PG&E violated Commission orders by failing to adequately support SCAP.