ALJ/CFT/jva Mailed 4/14/2006

Decision 06-04-018 April 13, 2006

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction of the Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Project.

Application 02-09-043
(Filed September 30, 2002)

OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO 280 CORRIDOR CONCERNED CITIZENS, CALIFORNIANS
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND WOMEN'S ENERGY MATTERS
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 04-08-046

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO 280 CORRIDOR CONCERNED CITIZENS, CALIFORNIANS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY,
AND WOMEN'S ENERGY MATTERS FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO DECISION 04-08-046 2 2

1. Background 2 2

2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation 4 4

3. Procedural Issues 5 5

4. WEM Showing of Financial Hardship 6 6

5. Substantial Contribution 8 8

5.1. 280 Citizens 9 9

5.1.1. Project Route 9 9

5.1.2. Environmental Review 12 12

5.1.3. Project Need and Timing 12 12

5.1.4. EMF Issues 14 14

5.1.5. Community Values 15 15

5.1.6. Seismic Issues 15 15

5.1.7. Visual Impacts 16 16

5.1.8. Construction Impacts 17 17

5.1.9. Project Costs 17 17

5.1.10. Biological Impacts 19 19

5.2. CARE 19 19

5.3. WEM 21 21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

6. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation 24 24

6.1. 280 Citizens' Request 24 24

6.1.1. Hours Requested 27 27

6.1.1.1. Category 10 Hours 30 30

6.1.1.2. Project Route (Category 4) 32 32

6.1.1.3. Environmental Review (Category 15) 34 34

6.1.1.4. Project Need and Timing (Category 1) 34 34

6.1.1.5. Project Costs (Category 7) 35 35

6.1.1.6. Remaining Substantive Issues 35 35

6.1.1.7. Travel Time 36 36

6.1.1.8. Time Spent on Compensation Request 37 37

6.1.2. Market Rate Standard 37 37

6.1.2.1. Attorneys 37 37

6.1.2.2. Paralegals 38 38

6.1.2.3. Expert Witnesses and Consultants 39 39

6.1.3. Expenses 45 45

6.2. CARE's Request 46 46

6.2.1. Hours Requested 48 48

6.2.1.1. CARE Site Visit and Motions to Reopen the Record 48 48

6.2.1.2. Public Participation Hearings and Commission Meetings 49 49

6.2.1.3. Activities Unrelated to This Proceeding 49 49

6.2.1.4. Time Spent on Compensation Issues 50 50

6.2.1.5. Attorneys and Paralegals 50 50

6.2.1.6. Boyd 51 51

6.2.1.7. Brown 52 52

6.2.1.8. Smallwood 56 56

6.2.1.9. Powers 58 58

6.2.1.10. Sarvey 58 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

6.2.2. Market Rate Standard 58 58

6.2.2.1. Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker 59 59

6.2.2.2. Gabrielli Law Office 60 60

6.2.2.3. Francke 61 61

6.2.2.4. Boyd 62 62

6.2.2.5. Brown 63 63

6.2.2.6. Smallwood, Powers, and Sarvey 63 63

6.2.3. Expenses 66 66

6.3. WEM's Request 66 66

6.3.1. Hours Requested 68 68

6.3.1.1. WEM Motion to Reopen the Record 68 68

6.3.1.2. Time Spent on Compensation Issues 69 69

6.3.1.3. Travel 69 69

6.3.1.4. Remainder of November 1, 2004 Compensation Request 69 69

6.3.1.5. April 1, 2005 Supplemental Request for Compensation 70 70

6.3.2. Hourly Rates 74 74

6.3.3. Expenses 74 74

7. Assignment of Proceeding 78 78

8. Comments on Draft Decision 78 78

Findings of Fact 78 78

Conclusions of Law 78 78

ORDER 79 79

OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TO 280 CORRIDOR CONCERNED CITIZENS, CALIFORNIANS
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND WOMEN'S ENERGY MATTERS
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 04-08-046

This decision awards 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens (280 Citizens), Women's Energy Matters (WEM), and CAlifornians for Renewable Energy (CARE) intervenor compensation for their contributions to Decision (D.) 04-08-046, in the following amounts: $718,501.61 to 280 Citizens, $126,713.40 to CARE, and $35,125.70 to WEM.

In their requests for intervenor compensation, these three parties cumulatively requested almost $1.6 million. We have scrutinized the requests closely, taking into account the complexity and the high degree of public interest in this proceeding, and as a result the awards granted to 280 Citizens, CARE, and WEM are approximately two-thirds, one-half, and one-third, respectively, of the amount requested. This proceeding is closed.

1. Background

In D.04-08-046, we granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to construct a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between PG&E's Jefferson and Martin substations, along with related facilities in the County of San Mateo. We found in D.04-08-046 that the Jefferson-Martin transmission project is needed in order to allow PG&E to continue to reliably meet electric demand in the San Francisco Peninsula area beginning in 2007. The project also has diversification, economic, and environmental benefits that warrant its construction more quickly than that. We found that a combination of the Jefferson-Martin project and additional transmission reinforcements north of the Martin substation and south of the Jefferson substation would allow closure of the Hunters Point power plant in San Francisco, bringing additional economic and environmental benefits. We adopted a construction cost cap of $206,988,000 for the authorized Jefferson-Martin project.

Responding to public concern regarding potential health effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF), D.04-08-046 required several changes to PG&E's preliminary EMF management plan for the Jefferson-Martin project. Concurrent with D.04-08-046, we initiated Rulemaking (R.) 04-08-020 to consider potential improvements to our EMF regulations.

Several parties intervened and participated actively during the environmental review, evidentiary hearing, and briefing process in the subject proceeding. Like other intervenors, 280 Citizens, CARE, and WEM each took positions aimed at protecting the interests of its members. With different constituents, the positions taken by these parties were widely divergent. 280 Citizens sought to influence the route and timing of the new Jefferson-Martin transmission project in the southern portion of the area through which the line will be built. CARE wants the existing Hunters Point power plant to be shut down as quickly as possible and, with that goal in mind, opposed route alternatives that could delay construction of the Jefferson-Martin project. WEM likewise advocated for closure of Hunters Point, focusing on the extent to which the Jefferson-Martin line would change the load serving capacity of the transmission system in the project area. WEM also addressed distributed generation, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and demand response programs as alternatives to the transmission project, and raised concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest in the preparation of cost estimates for the Jefferson-Martin project.

PG&E opposes 280 Citizens' request for compensation in part, does not take a position on CARE's request, and opposes WEM's request in its entirety. PG&E argues that 280 Citizens exaggerated its influence on the D.04-08-046 and has not shown a substantial contribution on many issues for which it claims a contribution. PG&E asserts that the Commission did not adopt any of WEM's positions, in whole or in part, and that WEM did not make a substantial contribution to D.04-08-046 in any other respect.