ALJ/MLC/avs Mailed 10/20/03

Decision 03-10-056 October 16, 2003

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902-E) for a Certificate Of Public Convenience & Necessity Valley-Rainbow 500kV Inter-Connect Project.

Application 01-03-036 (Filed March 23, 2001)

DECISION AWARDING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY (SSRC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

DECISION AWARDING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY 22

1. Background 22

2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation 44

A. Notice of Intent 44

1. Timeliness of NOI 44

2. Financial Hardship 55

B. Timeliness of Compensation Request 77

3. Substantial Contribution to Resolution of Issues 77

A. Reliability Need 88

B. Economic Need 1010

C. Environmental Impact/Siting 1010

4. The Reasonableness of Requested Compensation 1313

A. Overall Benefits of Participation 1414

B. Hours Claimed 1414

1. Disparity Between NOI and Compensation Request 1414

2. Hours for Efforts Related to Reliability
and Economic Need Issues 1616

3. Unallocated Time 1717

4. Compensation for Press/Lobbying Time, Other Matters 1818

a. Press Time 1818

b. Lobbying Time 2020

c. Mr. Smeerdyk's Time 2121

d. Condemnation Work 2222

C. Hourly Rates 2323

1. Attorneys 2323

2. Experts 2626

a. Mr. Smeerdyk 2626

b. Mr. Schmus 2828

3. Law Clerks 3030

D. Costs 3030

1. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger's Costs 3131

2. SSRC's Costs 3131

3. Mr. Smeerdyk's Costs 3232

5. Award 3333

A. SSRC's Comments 3535

1. Shute, Mihaly Costs 3535

Title Page

2. SSRC Costs 3737

B. SDG&E's Comments 3737

1. SSRC's Fundraising 3737

2. Division of Labor With Non-Intervenors 3838

DECISION AWARDING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY

This decision awards Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) $629,118.90¹ for its contribution to Decision (D.) 02-12-066. This amount is $38,501.74 less than SSRC's requested amount of $667,620.64. We have reduced SSRC's request because it 1) sought hourly rates for its experts that exceeded those we have awarded to other experts appearing before the Commission, 2) included uncompensable attorney time in its request, and 3) included in its $43,330.64 cost request costs that are excessive and not directly related to its contentions or recommendations in this proceeding.

1. Background

In D.02-12-066, we denied San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E) request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to construct a proposed 500 kilovolt (kV) transmission project and associated upgrades, called the Valley-Rainbow Project (Project). We reasoned that SDG&E would continue to meet established reliability criteria under conservative supply and demand forecasts within the adopted five-year planning horizon, and therefore concluded that the proposed project was not needed for reliability purposes.

Because SDG&E could not justify the proposed project on the basis of reliability, we evaluated whether the Project would provide positive economic benefits to SDG&E ratepayers and California generally. We found that the proposed project was not cost-effective to ratepayers except under extreme assumptions that were insufficient to cause us to grant the application. Under all other assumptions, the projected costs exceeded the projected benefits. Thus, we found that the proposed project could not be justified on economic grounds.

The Commission did not need to reach issues related to the environmental impact or siting of the Project in D.02-12-066 due to its rejection of the transmission line based on need criteria. Nonetheless, during Phase 1 of this proceeding, we took action to set the stage for such environmental and siting review in the event the Commission opted to approve the Project.

SSRC participated in each of the foregoing three aspects of the Project evaluation. It contributed to the Commission's consideration of the "reliability need" issue by offering testimony, cross-examination, oral argument and briefing on the issue, which had, according to SSRC, at least 16 sub-issues. SSRC provided testimony, cross-examination, oral argument, briefing and comments on the economic need issue. Finally, because the Commission initiated its environmental review of the Project during the first phase of the proceeding, SSRC provided substantial written comments on environmental issues and participated in public meetings related to the environmental impacts of and alternative routes for the Project. The Commission regularly cited the record SSRC provided, and the theories it advanced, in denying SDG&E's application.

SDG&E opposes certain aspects of SSRC's request. First, it claims that SSRC received more than $300,000 in private donations, and urges the Commission to deduct these amounts from any compensation award to prevent double recovery. Second, it argues that in its notice of intent to seek compensation, SSRC grossly underestimated the amount it would spend on the case, and that the Commission should hold SSRC to its early estimate. Third, it claims SSRC's hours related to the reliability need and economic need issues are inflated. Fourth, it argues that because D.02-12-066 did not decide environmental or siting issues, SSRC should not receive compensation for work on these matters. Fifth, it asks us to disallow or reduce unallocated time that SSRC did not attribute to the reliability need, economic need or environmental/alternates issues. Sixth, it asks us to disallow compensation for time spent communicating with the press or lobbying non-Commission governmental officials, and working on condemnation issues. Finally, it challenges SSRC's claimed costs as excessive because a large amount of the costs relate to fundraising activities, community organizing and travel. We will reach each of these issues in discussing our award. However, we first discuss the requirements for an award of intervenor compensation.