ALJ/TRP/avs Date of Issuance 5/31/2012

Decision 12-05-032 May 24, 2012

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of Pacific Gas & Electric Company To Revise Its Electric Marginal Costs, Revenue Allocation, and Rate Design, including Real Time Pricing, to Revise its Customer Energy Statements, and to Seek Recovery of Incremental Expenditures. (U39M)

Application 10-03-014 (Filed March 22, 2010)

DECISION AWARDING COMPENSATION TO SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 11-05-047

Claimant: Sierra Club California (Sierra Club)	For contribution to Decision (D.) 11-05-047
Claimed: $115,878.651	Awarded: $107,421.15 (reduced 7%)
Assigned Commissioner: Michael R. Peevey	Assigned ALJ: Thomas R. Pulsifer

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES

A. Brief Description of Decision:

D.11-05-047 adopted various residential rate design changes for Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) customers, including creation of a California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) Tier 3 rate, reduction of baseline quantities and adoption of a nonbypassable Conservation Incentive Adjustment (CIA). D.11-05-047 rejects PG&E's proposal to impose a residential customer charge and to eliminate non-CARE Tier 4.

B. Claimant must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Public Utilities Code §§ 1801-1812:

Claimant		CPUC Verified
Timely filing of notice of intent (NOI) to claim compensation (§ 1804(a)):
1. Date of Prehearing Conference:	May 19, 2010	Correct
2. Other Specified Date for NOI:	N/A
3. Date NOI Filed:	June 18, 2010	Correct
4. Was the notice of intent timely filed?		Yes
Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)):
5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:	A.10-03-014	Correct
6. Date of ALJ ruling:	November 30, 2010	Correct
7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
8. Has the claimant demonstrated customer or customer-related status?		Yes
Showing of "significant financial hardship" (§ 1802(g)):
9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number:	A.10-03-014	Correct
10. Date of ALJ ruling:	November 30, 2010	Correct
11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
12. 12. Has the claimant demonstrated significant financial hardship?		Yes
Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):
13. Identify Final Decision	D.11-05-047	Correct
14. Date of Issuance of Final Order or Decision:	June 2, 2011	Correct
15. File date of compensation request:	August 1, 2011	Correct
16. Was the request for compensation timely?		Yes

C. Sierra's Additional Comments on Part I:

Claimant

Comment

X

Sierra Club California is a grassroots environmental organization interested in implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement increased renewable energy to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Sierra Club's interest in this proceeding is not related to any business interest.  Sierra Club receives funding for environmental advocacy from many sources, including philanthropic donations, members' contributions and other sources.  Sierra Club has entered into agreements with certain residential rooftop solar installers that will likely result in a small amount of additional funding.  However, Sierra Club's involvement in the present proceeding is completely independent and unrelated to those small amounts of funding.

PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION

A. Claimant's claimed contribution to the final decision or record:

Contribution	Citation to Decision or Record	Showing Accepted by CPUC
1. Sierra Club demonstrated that the rate design proposals to impose a customer charge and eliminate Tier 4 would reduce incentives to conserve. Sierra Club presented both a qualitative and robust quantitative analysis to demonstrate that the overall effect of the rate design proposals would reduce energy conservation. See Ex. 7, Sierra Club at 10-28, Sierra Club's Opening Brief at 8-9, and Sierra Club's Reply Brief at 9-15. Sierra Club argued that the customer charge and elimination of Tier 4 proposals would reduce incentives for energy conservation, energy efficiency, and solar photovoltaic (PV). Sierra Club's testimony presented unique econometric analysis to demonstrate projected impacts on energy conservation, and rational choice models using levelized cost of energy for solar PV impacts and savings-to-investment ratio for energy efficiency impacts.	"Various intervening parties object that...the proposed reductions for upper-tier customers would impair incentives to be more energy efficient." Decision at 3. "Sierra Club argues that removing Tier 4 will reduce incentives to conserve. PG&E's witness, Dr. Faruqui, testified that PG&E's proposals as a whole would have a small pro-conservation effect. Certain of PG&E's proposals which may reduce conservation incentives for some customers offset other elements which increase incentives for other customers." Decision at 49 (emphasis added). "If Tier 4 were entirely eliminated, there would be no rate incentive to conserve for usage beyond 200 percent of baseline." Decision at 48. "The customer charge also would conflict with price signals that encourage conservation and utilization of alternative resources such as solar. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the customer charge proposal on both legal and policy grounds." Decision at 24. "Because a fixed customer charge cannot be avoided by a customer's reducing usage or being more energy efficient, the customer charge offers no conservation price signal." Decision at 33. "Various parties oppose reducing the rate tiers to three, arguing that a four-tiered structure: 1) provides stronger conservation incentives to customers; 2) provides price signals that promote increased distributed renewable generation development among customers..." Decision at 44. "Shifting revenue recovery from a volumetric rate to a fixed customer charge produces a bill impact that cannot be avoided by changing usage patterns or being more energy efficient." Decision Findings of Fact 13.	Yes
2. Sierra Club sponsored testimony using economic analysis of levelized cost of energy (LCOE) to evaluate the impact of proposed rates on adoption of residential solar PV. See Ex. 7, Sierra Club, at 29 - 53, which demonstrates that the effect of the rate design proposals would have resulted in a LCOE of less than zero for customers who currently have an incentive to adopt solar PV. Sierra Club was the only intervenor in this proceeding that provided this analysis. See Sierra Club's Opening Brief at 11-12, Sierra Club's Reply Brief at 15-20.	Solar Alliance, Vote Solar, and Sierra Club all argued that high Tier 4 residential rates help to make solar PV more cost-effective to customers (Sierra Club's, Ex.7, at 29 to 53.)" Decision at 46. "Entirely eliminating Tier 4 could impede progress toward achieving the California Solar Initiative (CSI) goal of creating a self-sustaining residential solar PV market. By promoting the market for residential PV, we help to advance the state's loading order and meet Assembly Bill (AB) 32 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals." Decision at 48. "We recognize that utility bill savings are the most important driver of a customer's decisions to invest in PV. The amount of time it takes for bill savings to equal the total cost of a PV system is the payback period. The elimination of Tier 4 would cause a significant reduction in a customer's annual bill savings associated with PV installations, and thereby extend the customer's payback period." Decision at 48. "A four-tier rate structure should continue as a means of promoting a price signal conducive to energy efficiency and a self-sustaining photovoltaic solar market." Conclusion of Law 15.	Yes
3. Sierra Club sponsored testimony using economic analysis of savings-to-investment ratio to evaluate the impact of proposed rates on adoption of energy efficiency measures, particularly the adoption of efficient air conditioners. Sierra Club was the only intervenor in this proceeding to address energy efficiency impacts. See Ex. 7, Sierra Club, at 54-68. See Sierra Club's Opening Brief at 9-11, Sierra Club's Reply Brief at 25-27.	"Other intervenors oppose PG&E's proposals based on concerns that reducing upper tier rates will impair incentives to be energy efficient or to move to solar technologies." Decision at 11. "Various intervening parties object that.......the proposed reductions for upper-tier customers would impair incentives to be more energy efficient." Decision at 3. "Another important criterion for rate design is to encourage energy efficiency and use of renewable resources consistent with the Commission's Energy Action Plan (EAP). Thus, our adopted rate design measures preserve price signals that promote achievement of energy efficiency and related energy resource goals." Decision at 17-18. "Consolidating Tier 4 would remove the price incentive to be more energy efficient for usage that exceeds 200 percent of baseline." Decision Finding of Fact 22. "A four-tier rate structure should continue as a means of promoting a price signal conducive to energy efficiency and a self-sustaining photovoltaic solar market." Conclusion of Law 15.	Yes
4. Sierra Club advanced legal and policy arguments connecting California energy policy goals with the economic analysis presented in Sierra Club's testimony. Sierra Club argued that the impacts of rate design proposals were counter to the energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction policies of the State of California. Sierra Club's briefs included unique sections citing and analyzing the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) Energy Action Plan (EAP), the loading order, CSI, Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), Global Warming Solutions Act AB 32, and other authorities. See Sierra Club's Opening Brief at 4-8, and Sierra Club's Reply Brief at 7-9, 20-22.	"Another important criterion for rate design is to encourage energy efficiency and use of renewable resources consistent with the Commission's EAP. Thus, our adopted rate design measures preserve price signals that promote achievement of energy efficiency and related energy resource goals." Decision at 17-18. "Entirely eliminating Tier 4 could impede progress toward achieving the CSI goal of creating a self-sustaining residential solar PV market. By promoting the market for residential PV, we help to advance the state's loading order and meet AB 32 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals." Decision at 48. "The continuation of a four-tier rate design will preserve a price signal to encourage customers to install solar photovoltaic facilities and promote progress toward achieving the CSI goal of creating a self-sustaining residential solar photovoltaic market. Promoting the market for residential PV helps advance the state's loading order, meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, and achieve RPS compliance. Decision Finding of Fact 23.	Yes
5. Impacts to Community Choice Aggregators (CCA) with Flat Generation and Distribution Rates. Sierra Club raised issues and concerns related to the proposal to implement flat generation and distribution rates using a CIA. Sierra Club sponsored testimony that provided historical context of Community Choice Aggregation, arguing that the proposal was "artificially designing generation rates for CCAs," and "inherently restricts [CCA ability] to design rates in the way that address local customer needs and the CCA's unique business plan." (See Opening Brief at 18-19, Reply Brief at 31, Ex.9, Sierra Club (Fenn) at 6, 9, 36-39) This finding was part of the reasoning for the Commission to allow additional time for CCA's to transition to the new system. See Ex. 9, Sierra Club (Fenn), Sierra Club Opening Brief 16-20. Sierra Club Reply Brief at 28-34.	The Decision recognized that potential rate disparities...could exist...from replacing tiered generation rates by flat generation rates with the CIA, using nonbypassable tiered rates," and that it could "potentially impact how a CCA may design its own rates to compete for retail customers." Decision at 65 and 66. "Direct Access (DA) and CCA Customers could experience bill impacts with implementation of the CIA rate component." Decision Finding of Fact 34.	Yes

B. Duplication of Effort (§§ 1801.3(f) & 1802.5):

Claimant		CPUC Verified
a. Was Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) a party to the proceeding?	Yes	Correct
b. Were there other parties to the proceeding?	Yes	Correct
c. If so, provide name of other parties: Direct Access Customer Coalition; Vote Solar Initiative; California Manufacturers & Technology Association; County of Kern; City of Hercules; Lamont PU District; Utility Cost Management LLC; Lamont Cost Management LLC; Alliance for Retail Energy Markets; City and County of San Francisco; Energy Producers & Users Coalition; The Solar Alliance; Disability Rights Advocates; Marin Energy Authority; Women's Energy Matters; Sierra Club California; Merced Irrigation District; Merced Irrigation District; Agricultural Energy Consumers Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; The Utility Reform Network; Southern California Edison Company; Kern County Taxpayers Association; California City-County Street Light Association; Federal Executive Agencies; California Large Energy Consumers Association; Western Manufactured Housing Association; South San Joaquin Irrigation District; Town of Fairfax; The Alliance for Human and Environmental Health; Energy Users Forum; and California League of Food Processors.		Correct
d. Claimant's description of how it coordinated with DRA and other parties to avoid duplication or how claimant's participation supplemented, complemented, or contributed to that of another party: Sierra Club conferred with DRA and other parties representing consumer and low-income communities, with parties interested in the solar industry, and with parties interested in Community Choice Aggregation. These communications identified areas of agreement, and identified activities of parties to ensure that Sierra Club's work would be supportive and complimentary and not duplicative. This led to Sierra Club's testimony and legal arguments focusing on unique economic analysis of energy conservation, energy efficiency, and solar PV, and legal and policy arguments related to efficiency and renewable energy resources, while other parties focused on arguments related specifically to consumer protection, low-income communities, and Section 739(a) and 739.1(b) analysis. Sierra Club's solar PV analysis was complimentary to that of other parties in that Sierra Club California was the only party to use the approach of comparing levelized cost of energy, an important indicator of customer rational choice to adopt solar PV. Sierra Club participated in settlement negotiations on residential rate design, which helped parties with shared positions on residential rate design issues coordinate positions, while engaging in good faith discussions toward a settlement.		We make no reductions to Sierra Club's claim for unnecessary duplication of effort. Sierra Club's timesheets demonstrate that it coordinated with other parties to avoid duplication and worked to supplement or complement the record. In areas where Sierra Club did not prevail, we find that Sierra Club's participation provided information and argument that allowed the Commission to consider the full range of positions, thereby assisting the Commission's informed judgment based on a more complete record.

C. Sierra Club's Additional Comment on Part II:

#	Claimant	Comment
Part II (A)	X	Although the Commission did not adopt Sierra Club's position on flat generation, distribution rates and the CIA, Sierra Club's testimony and presentation helped provide a full discussion of alternatives and arguments for Commission consideration, resulting in a full debate on the issues. This debate resulted in recognition in the Decision regarding the counter-arguments and full reasoning behind the Decision, thereby constituting a substantial contribution to the record and the Commission's process.

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION

A. General Claim of Reasonableness (§§ 1801 & 1806):

Claimant's explanation as to how the cost of claimant's participation bore a reasonable relationship with benefits realized through claimant's participation

CPUC Verified

Sierra Club's participation in this proceeding will result in benefits to ratepayers that exceed the cost of participation. Sierra Club's advocacy raised issues related to social and environmental costs of the rate design proposals, demonstrating the impacts of the proposal on energy conservation, energy efficiency, and solar PV installation. By the Commission structuring rate design without the customer charge proposal, and retaining Tier 4, this will save Tier 1 and Tier 2 customers, particularly customers with lower energy usage, $3 per month. Ratepayers will benefit from the benefits of the rate structure incentives for greater levels of energy efficiency and distributed generation solar PV. These energy efficiency and renewable energy benefits avoid incremental costs related to electric distribution and procured generation, and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Sierra Club submits that the benefits of its participation will far exceed the cost of Sierra Club's participation in this proceeding.

While we cannot quantify the benefits of Sierra Club's contributions, we believe it is likely that the future benefits to ratepayers will exceed the amount awarded to Sierra Club California by today's decision. We find that Sierra Club's participation in these proceedings have been productive. After the reductions and adjustment we make to this claim, the remaining hours and costs are reasonable and warrant compensation.

B. Specific Claim*:

Claimed						CPUC Award
ATTORNEY AND ADVOCATE FEES
Item	Year	Hours	Rate $	Basis for Rate*	Total $	Year	Hours	Rate $	Total $

J. Metropulos	2010	4.1		325		Adopted here	1,332.50	2010	4.1	1102	451.00
J. Metropulos	2011	3.2		340		Adopted here	1,088.00	2011	3.2	1103	352.00
A. Katz	2010	152.3		190		Adopted here	28,937.00	2010	148.8	180	26,784.00
A. Katz	2011	74.1		200		Adopted here	14,820.00	2011	74.1	190	14,079.00
Subtotal: $46,177.50								Subtotal: $41,666.00
EXPERT FEES
Item	Year	Hours		Rate $		Basis for Rate*	Total $	Year	Hours	Rate $	Total $
D. Mulvaney	2010	56.5		175		Adopted here	9,887.50	2010	55.5	175	9,712.50
A. Gershenson	2010	56.5		185		Adopted here	10,452.50	2010	55.5	185	10,267.50
J. Barsimantov	2010	72.0		195		Adopted here	14,040.00	2010	71.0	195	13,845.00
B. Weil	2010	51.0		270		Adopted here	13,770.00	2010	51.0	270	13,770.00
A. Spearot	2010	47.0		185		Adopted here	8,695.00	2010	45.5	185	8,417.50
P. Fenn	2010	40.0		200		Adopted here	8,000.00	2010	40.0	200	8,000.00
Subtotal: $64,845.00								Subtotal: $64,012.50
OTHER FEES (Travel):
Item	Year		Hours	Rate $		Basis for Rate*	Total $	Year	Hours	Rate $	Total $
A. Katz	2010		10.5	95		½ rate adopted here	997.50	2010	0.00	90	0.00
A. Katz	2011		1.5	100		½ rate adopted here	150.00	2011	0.00	95	0.00
D. Mulvaney	2010		3.0	87.50		½ rate adopted here	262.50	2010	0.00	87.50	0.00
A. Gershenson	2010		3.0	92.50		½ rate adopted here	277.50	2010	0.00	92.50	0.00
J. Barsimantov	2010		3.0	97.50		½ rate adopted here	292.50	2010	0.00	97.50	0.00
A. Spearot	2010		3.0	92.50		½ rate adopted here	277.50	2010	0.00	92.50	0.00
P. Fenn	2010		2.0	1004		½ rate adopted here	200.00	2010	0.00	100	0.00
Subtotal: $2,457.50								Subtotal: $0.00
INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION ***
Item	Year		Hours		Rate $	Basis for Rate*	Total $	Year	Hours	Rate $	Total $
A. Katz	2011		16.0		100	½ rate adopted here	1,600.00	2011	16.05	95	1,520.00
J. Metropulos	2011		0.4		170	½ rate adopted here	68.00	2011	0.4	55	22.00
Subtotal: $1,668.00								Subtotal: $1,542.00
COSTS
Item							Total $	Total $
Printing-Litigation binders with testimony							630.00	100.00
Mailing of testimony, briefs and notices							44.36	44.36
Photocopying-Evidentiary Hearing Exhibits							56.29	56.29
Subtotal: $730.65								Subtotal: $200.65
TOTAL REQUEST: $115,878.65								TOTAL AWARD: $107,421.15
*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. Claimant'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. **Sierra Club has referenced Resolution ALJ-267 as the basis for its requested rates. ***Reasonable claim preparation time typically compensated at ½ of preparer's normal hourly rate.

C. Sierra Club's Comments Documenting Specific Claim:

Description/Comment

Reasonableness of Hours and Rates Sierra Club submits that its requested rates are appropriately within the range approved by the Commission for compensating experts and attorneys with the level of experience of each expert and advocate in Resolution ALJ-267. Overall, Sierra Club limited its activities only to those reasonably required to participate in the litigation of the proceeding. Sierra Club coordinated with other parties to avoid duplication of work, as evidenced by its testimony and briefs which focused on the unique environmental perspective, evidence, and legal and policy arguments that Sierra Club contributed to this proceeding.

Allocation of Hours As shown on the record of hours, Sierra Club California allocated hours into three categories: "G" is general work necessary to participate in the proceeding and not related to a specific issue, "R" is work primarily related to residential rate design issues such as the customer charge and Tier 4 proposals, and "C" is work primarily related to the conservation incentive adjustment and generation flattening. Sierra Club worked the following distribution of hours: General - 31.5 (6%) Rate Design - 464.2 (81%) Conservation Incentive Adjustment - 75 (13%)

C. CPUC Adoptions, Disallowances and Adjustments:

Adoptions
2010-2011 hourly rates for Jim Metropulos	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $325 for Jim Metropulos's advocacy work. Metropulos oversees the energy programs at Sierra Club California. In this proceeding, he reviewed Sierra Club's pleadings and filings. According to Sierra Club, Metropulos has been a legal representative for Sierra Club since 2002, specializing in energy and water issues. Before he joined Sierra Club, Metropulos was committee counsel to the Washington State Senate's Environment, Energy and Water Resources Committee. Metropulos clerked previously with Justice Jim Regnier of the Montana Supreme Court. Metropulos graduated from Tulane Law School specializing in Environmental and Natural Resources Law. Metropulos was admitted to the Oregon State Bar in 1995 and the Illinois State Bar in 1996. We find no match for Metropulos in the California BAR. Metropulos holds a Bachelor's degree in accounting from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. We consider Sierra Club's rate for Metropulos as a 16 year advocate. Metropulos has no previously approved rate before the Commission. We have reviewed the timesheets submitted for Metropulos and all of Metropulos work is logged as "general" work, work which according to Sierra Club was necessary and not related to a specific issue. In this category the hours logged for Metropulos include his attendance at internal meetings and general review of Sierra Club's work and compensation claim. Noticeably absent is substantive work such as the development of analytical methodology or the developing of statistical results. We do not find that Metropulos's work led to the building of charts or graphs or anything other than reviewing or opining the work of others and attending internal meetings and reviewing internal emails. We apply an hourly rate of $135 to Metropulos's 2010-2011 work, equal to work compensated for advocates in D.11-01-024.6 Given the scope of Metropulos's work, the adjustment to Sierra Club's hourly rate request for his work is warranted and more closely reflects our standards on the reasonableness of hourly rates.
2010 hourly rate for Andy Katz	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $190 for Andy Katz's 2010 work in this proceeding. Katz holds a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master of City Planning degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a law degree from Santa Clara University. Katz was admitted into the State Bar of California in December 2009. In this proceeding, Katz was the used as the primary attorney for drafting pleadings, filings and directing the scope of testimony related to the proceeding. Katz managed the scope of Sierra Club's work for expert testimony, represented Sierra Club in hearings and settlement conferences and advised Sierra Club California's Energy Committee on strategy and case management. Since 2004, Katz's environmental planning and advocacy experience has included economic analysis of demand management for energy and transportation systems, analysis of economic incentives for renewable energy and air quality and global warming policy in the Unites States (U.S.) and California. According to Sierra Club, Katz has advocacy experience on air quality and energy issues before the legislature and the California Air Resources Board. Katz has also prepared comments and pleadings in CPUC proceedings including the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Implementation proceeding related to feed-in-tariffs, energy procurement targets and cap-and-trade utility greenhouse gas allowance value. Katz has no previously approved rate before the Commission. Sierra Club submits that the requested 2010 rate of $190 is reasonable and within the range of ($150-$205) approved in ALJ-267 for attorneys with 0-2 years of experience. The exact mid point of the rate range for an attorney with one year of experience is $177.50. We use figure and round it to the nearest $5.00 increment7 equaling $180 as the reasonable hourly rate for Katz as a first year attorney. We adopt the hourly rate of $180 for Katz's 2010 work.
2011 hourly rate for Andy Katz	Sierra Club requests that the Commission apply a first 5% step-increase to the 2010 hourly rate approved for Andy Katz here. This is authorized in D.08-04-010 and Resolution ALJ-267. The request is reasonable. When applied to Katz's 2010 rate, we derive an hourly rate of $190 for Katz's 2011 work. We adopt this rate for Katz's 2011 work.
2010 hourly rate for Dustin Mulvaney	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $175 for expert Dustin Mulvaney's work in this proceeding. Delaney holds a PhD in Environmental Studies from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering and a Master of Science in Environmental Policy Studies from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. According to Sierra Club, Mulvaney is an expert in the life cycle impacts of renewable energy technologies. His primary research is funded by the National Science Foundation which focuses on the assumptions used in metrics that characterize the performance of photovoltaic and biofuel technologies, and how these metrics are used in decision-making processes. Mulvaney has worked as a research scientist for the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition on their "Just and Sustainable Solar PV" campaign. According to Sierra Club, Mulvaney is a Principal at EcoShift Consulting, with 5 years of relevant experience. Mulvaney's focus in this proceeding was to draft Section V of Exhibit 7. Mulvaney has no previously approved rate before the Commission. Resolution ALJ-267 adopts a range of ($125-$185) for experts with 0-6 years of experience. We find the requested hourly rate for Mulvaney's 2010 work of $175 to be reasonable and adopt it.
2010 hourly rate for Alan Spearot	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $185 for expert Alan Spearot's 2010 work in this proceeding. Spearot holds a Master of Science and PhD in economics from the University of Wisconsin and a Bachelor of Science in Industrial and Operations Engineering from the University of Michigan. According to Sierra Club, Spearot is an expert in international trade, industrial organization, and applied econometrics. Spearot has conducted research over a broad area of theoretical and empirical topics, including the effect of (international) tariff programs, trade agreement, negotiation, corporate finance, and firm level behavior. He has received grant money as a co-investigator from the University of California Institute for Energy and Environmental Economics to study vehicle pricing and fuel economy regulations. Spearot has also served as a member of the University of California Santa Cruz "Chancellor's Committee on Climate Change", where he was a key member of the team evaluating on-campus cogeneration options, including traditional and alternative sources. Spearot has 6 years of relevant experience and has no previously approved rate before the Commission. Spearot's focus in this proceeding was to draft Section IV of Exhibit 7. Resolution ALJ-267 adopts a range of ($125-$185) for experts with 0-6 years of experience. We find Sierra Club's requested hourly rate for Spearot's 2010 work of $185 to be reasonable and adopt it.
2010 hourly rate for Alexander Gershenson	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $185 for expert Alexander Gershenson's 2010 work in this proceeding. Gershenson holds a PhD from the University of California, Santa Cruz in Environmental Studies and a Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources Management from Rutgers University. According to Sierra Club, Gershenson is an expert in climate change science and policy and has evaluated the effects of existing and proposed legislative efforts on Greenhouse Gas mitigation. As a Principal at EcoShift Consulting, Gershenson has authored a technical white paper on carbon dynamics for the Climate Action Reserve and has conducted applied energy efficiency research for multiple clients. In addition, Gershenson has taught several courses at San Jose State University that focused on U.S. and California Energy and climate change policy. According to Sierra Club, Gershenson has 6 years of relevant experience and has no previously approved rate before the Commission. Gershenson's focus in this proceeding was to draft Section I and II in addition to contributing to Section II of Exhibit 7. Resolution ALJ-267 adopts a range of ($125-$185) for experts with 0-6 years of experience. We find Sierra Club's requested hourly rate for Gershenson's 2010 work of $185 to be reasonable and adopt it.
2010 hourly rate for James Barsimantov	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $195 for expert James Barsimantov's 2010 work in this proceeding. Barsimantov holds a PhD from University Santa Cruz (UCSC) and a Bachelor of Arts degree from University California Berkeley. Barsimantov has 7 years of experience in environmental policy and economics, with an emphasis on climate planning and economic analysis of energy solutions for the public and private sectors. Barsimantov is a Principal of EcoShift Consulting and has developed several modeling tools for residential and commercial energy efficiency, has completed Climate Action Plans and energy assessments for many clients, and has developed a local carbon offset program for the Monterey Bay Region. Barsimantov is the Climate Action Manager and Lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz. In his role as the Climate Action Manager, Barsimantov was the principal author of the UCSC's Climate Action Plan, evaluating different energy efficiency and renewable energy options, and examining the economic consequences of different proposed actions. Barsimantov teaches several classes in the Environmental Studies Department at UCSC, including Environmental Economics, Political Economics and the Environment, and Sustainability Engineering and Practice. Barsimantov has no previously approved rate before the Commission. Barsimantov's was the primary drafter of Sections I and III, and contributed to Section II of Exhibit 7. Resolution ALJ-267 adopts a range of ($155-$270) for experts with 7-12 years of experience. We find an hourly rate of $195 for Barsimantov's 2010 work to be reasonable and adopt it.
2010 hourly rate for Paul Fenn	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $200 for expert Paul Fenn's 2010 work in this proceeding. Fenn is the Founder and President of Local Power. Inc. (LIP). Fenn holds a 1992 Master's Degree from University of Chicago, where he was awarded a PhD fellowship in Intellectual History. Before that, Fenn was Dean's Fellow at Manhattan's New School for Social Research in 1989-90 in the Philosophy PhD program, and received a Bachelors Degree from Bates College in 1988 with Highest Honors and Muller Prize for best senior thesis in the History Department. Recipient of multiple awards and honorary speeches for his work in energy, political theory and economic theory. According to Sierra Club, Fenn created the concept of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) and his work includes all dimensions of CCA policy, law, regulation, planning, strategy and implementation. Fenn served in the Massachusetts Senate as Legislative Director to the Senate Chairman of the Joint Committee on Energy, where he represented the Chairman at all top-level state official meetings and negotiations on electric industry restructuring including the Department of Public Utilities and Division of Energy Resources and the National Council on Competition in the Electric Industry formed by the National Council of State Legislatures as advisor to the vice-chair. In his capacity as chief advisor to the Chairman, Fenn drafted the nation's first Community Choice Aggregation bill, Senate Bill 447, which was also the nation's first CCA law, adopted in 1997 as part of Chapter 164. In 1995, Fenn became National Coordinator of the American Local Power Project, a project administered by a non-profit organization called Self Reliance, based in Massachusetts, to educate local government officials in states facing deregulation of the electricity and gas industries. During 1997-2000, Fenn drafted CCA legislation for California in 2000, selected its sponsor and ushered it through the legislative process during 2001 and 2002, resulting in its adoption as AB 117 which was signed by Governor Gray Davis on September 24, 2002. Fenn has participated in a number of related CCA-related proceedings at the Commission over the years and received intervenor compensation in D.05-06-052. Fenn prepared the "Comments on California Natural Gas Utilities' Phase I Proposals" in R.04-01-003 on behalf of Ratepayers for Affordable Clean Energy (RACE) in 2004. According to Sierra Club, Fenn has prepared testimony, comments, briefs and rebuttal documents and in evidentiary hearings has crossed-examined witnesses, and also participated directly as an expert witness involving cross-examination by utility and other parties as an expert on Community Choice Aggregation and AB 117 in R.03-10-003.8 Fenn is a consultant to several California local governments on CCA policy definition, data analysis and implementation, including the City and County of San Francisco, Sonoma County and San Luis Obispo County. Fenn's main focus in work over the past six years has resolved around the question of how to design greener portfolios for any given regional community, based on the customer usage data available to CCAs as per AB117. While Sierra Club is not requesting the same hourly rate for Fenn's 2010 work at the same rate he receives as a consultant of $250/hr, Sierra Club submits that the requested hourly rate of $200 for his work in this proceeding is reasonable. Fenn's 15 years of experience places him within the adopted range of ($155-$390) for experts with 13+ years of experience. We note that unlike the other expert's who participated in this proceeding, that Sierra Club has failed to identify what portions of its work is attributed to Fenn. We have relied on our independent review of his timesheets to attribute his work, and find that 75% of his time was spent preparing testimony on Conservation Incentive Adjustment. We find the requested rate of $200 for Fenn's 2010 work to be reasonable and adopt it.
2010 hourly rate for Benjamin Weil	Sierra Club requests an hourly rate of $270 for its expert Benjamin Weil. Weil holds a PhD in Environmental Studies from the University of Santa Cruz and a Master of Arts from Syracuse University in History. Weil's dissertation topic was specifically on California energy policy. Weil covered the period from 1974-2007, giving him insight into the formation of California energy policy including the advent of the tiered rate system, its impacts, evolution, and arguments around it. Prior to that, Weil acted as an energy policy consultant, performing research and writing reports, updates, and strategy documents for the World Future Council and Earth Action. Weil's research here focused on feed-in tariffs and renewable portfolio standards. Currently, Weil serves as an Energy Analyst with the Center for Ecological Technology. Weil currently works for a contractor that manages the Mass Save program in the western half of the state of Massachusetts. The Mass Save Program is a state-mandated utility-28 sponsored energy conservation program. In addition, as a Building Performance Institute (BPI) certified energy analyst9, Weil also has expertise in evaluating electricity loads on the consumer side and designing and implementing energy conservation strategies. Weil role in this proceeding was authoring Section VI of Exhibit 7 in addition to contributions to Section II. Sierra Club bases its requested hourly rate for Weil's 2010 work on his 12 years of relevant experience. Decision 08-04-010 approves a rate range of ($155-$270) for experts with 7-12 years of experience. As Sierra Club has outlined here, and based on Weil's background and relevant experience, we find a rate at the higher end of the range is reasonable. We adopt a rate of $270 for Weil's 2010 work.
Disallowances and Adjustments
Disallowance of hours related to "routine travel"	The Commission awards fees and expenses for reasonable travel time but disallows compensation for time incurred during "routine travel". In D.10-11-032, the Commission defined "routine travel" as travel that occurs with a one-way travel distance of 120 miles or less for attorneys, consultants and other experts participating in Commission matters. Travel time and expenses occurring within this parameter are considered "routine" and non-compensable. We disallow all requested travel time for Sierra Club as none of their participants travelled a one-way distance exceeding 120 miles. Per correspondence email dated April 16, 2012, Sierra Club lists the following as its starting points to the Commission: Katz's travel originated from 2530 San Pablo Ave Ste 1 Berkeley, CA 94105-12.4 miles one-way Barsimantov, Mulvaney, Gershenson and Spearot's travel originated from 270 Canyon Oaks, Santa Cruz, CA 95065--67.9 miles one-way Fenn's travel originated from P.O. Box 744, Marshall, CA 94940-47 miles one-way
Katz's time on 9-19-10 reviewing PG&E testimony for Paul Fenn	We disallow 2 hours of this time as being duplicative of the compensated efforts of Paul Fenn. We have compensated Fenn for 2 hours of this work.
Disallowance of Katz time attending evidentiary hearing on 11-12-10	Sierra Club requests 6 hrs of compensation for Katz's attendance at the evidentiary hearing held on 11-12-10. A review of the transcripts indicates that the hearing started at 9:30 am and ended at 3:30 pm. This time included a 1 hr lunch break and two recess breaks (approximately 15 mins. each). We compensate 4.5 hrs of the requested time and disallow the remaining 1.5 hrs.
Disallowance of Spearot's time attending evidentiary hearing on 11-12-10	Sierra Club requests 6 hrs of compensation for Spearot's attendance at the 11-12-10 evidentiary hearing. A review of the transcripts indicates that the hearing started at 9:30 am and ended at 3:30 pm. This time included a 1 hr lunch break and two recess breaks (approximately 15 mins. each). We compensate 4.5 hrs of the requested time and disallow the remaining 1.5 hrs.
Disallowance of experts time attending evidentiary hearing on 11-18-10	Sierra Club requests 6 hrs for each of its experts Mulvaney, Gershenson and Barsimantov to provide testimony at the evidentiary hearing held on 11-18-10. A review of the transcripts indicates that the hearing started at 9:00 am and ended at 3:37 pm. This time included a 1 hr lunch break and two recess breaks (approximately 15 mins. each). We compensate 5.0 hrs of the requested time and disallow the remaining 1.0 hr.
Photocopying and printing expenses	Sierra Club requests $63010 for printing litigation binders with testimony. We approve $100 of these costs and disallow the remainder ($530) for excessiveness.11 The adjusted amount more closely reflects our standards of reasonableness.

PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS

A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the claim?

No

B. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(2)(6))?

Yes

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Sierra Club California has made a substantial contribution to D.11-05-047.

2. The claimed fees and costs, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

3. The total of reasonable contribution is $107,421.15.

¹ See footnote 3.

² In Part II, Section C, we have reviewed the scope of Metropulos's work and concluded that his work here more closely resembles non-substantive work typically performed by an advocate/paralegal and compensate his 2010-2011 work accordingly.

³ Ibid.

⁴ In its correspondence email dated April 16, 2012, Sierra Club requests that the Commission correct the hourly rate request it erroneously lists here. We do so and recalculate Sierra Club's request.

⁵ Sierra Club is fairly new to compensation matters. Recognizing this, we approve slightly higher hours (3-4) than we would normally compensate for this task when compared with other intervenors filing similar claims for compensation. Over time, we would expect that Sierra Club's hours, especially those relating to preparation of its NOI (3 hrs) will be lower. Standardized claims and instructions which provide for the most expeditious preparation are available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/IntervenorCompGuide/.

⁶ We awarded this same rate to CARE's Advocate Michael Boyd for his 2010 work in D.11-01-024. In 2010, Boyd had been participating as an advocate/expert before the Commission for 7 years. Resolution ALJ-267 sets rates for attorneys and experts, but does not address rates for advocates. We make this determination, by applying the same rates we have adopted for other advocates who performed work similar to the work Metropulos performed here. Since Resolution ALJ-267 does not adopt cost-of-living increases for 2011 work, we apply the same rate to Metropulos' 2011 work.

⁷ See D-08-04-010 at 13.

⁸ Fenn had previously adopted rates for his 2004-2005 of $125 in D.05-06-052. In accordance with D.07-01-009, we seek a new rate as if that person were new to Commission proceedings when the rate last authorized exceeds the previous four years.

⁹ See http://bpi.org/companies_benefits.aspx.

¹⁰ We advise Sierra Club that future claims it may file which include miscellaneous expenses for an item over $20.00, must be supported by receipts to justify these expenses.

¹¹ We note that 2 of the 4 intervenors in this proceeding requested no compensation for photocopying expenses. We approved this same amount for Disability Rights Advocates, the only remaining intervenor requesting reimbursement for this expense.