parties. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. of cost reasonableness: Intervenor’s claim CPUC Discussion In this proceeding advocacy helped contribute to the UCAN’s denial of application thereby saving the Commission’s SDG&E’s Verified ratepayers $379 million. The costs for participation, including UCAN’s for the hours for Executive Director, and the hours for two UCAN’s weather experts on wind totals $233,381.38. UCAN believes that our presentation helped inform the Commission of critical issues and provide value to the record. In our NOI we estimated the costs of our participation at $198,750.00. A large cost component of our claim is that UCAN was the intervenor that dealt with the complex wind related issues in this proceeding. In testimony SDG&E had put forward their own wind exerts who conducted modeling ad wind tunnel analysis of wind events surrounding the 2007 fires. To counter weather experts, UCAN hired two wind experts SDG&E’s who examined wind analysis from different perspectives, and SDG&E’s they produced 3 volumes of testimony. In the Decision, the Commission noted the following: we find the methodologies that experts utilized in “Because UCAN’s developing its testimony to be more consistent with the actual weather and wind conditions in San Diego County in October 2007, the Commission does not find that the 2007 Wildfires were spread under unprecedented wind and weather conditions.” Given the help that participation provided to the Commission, UCAN’s we believe that our request of $233,381.38 is reasonable and justified. Travel/lodging costs As can be seen from timesheets, Mr. Kelly traveled to the UCAN’s Commission for both a prehearing conference and for evidentiary hearings. In order to minimize expenses, for the times when Mr. Kelly went to the Commission for more than one proceeding, he sought to divide the costs between the cases. Also, in order to save on lodging, Mr. Kelly, when traveling to the Commission for a multi-day appearance (i.e., evidentiary hearings) he seeks to avoid lodging expenses by staying with
parties. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: In this proceeding UCAN’s advocacy helped contribute to the Commission’s denial of SDG&E’s application thereby saving the ratepayers $379 million. The costs for UCAN’s participation, including for the hours for UCAN’s Executive Director, and the hours for two weather experts on wind totals $233,381.38. UCAN believes that our presentation helped inform the Commission of critical issues and provide value to the record. In our NOI we estimated the costs of our participation at $198,750.00. A large cost component of our claim is that UCAN was the intervenor that dealt with the complex wind related issues in this proceeding. In testimony SDG&E had put forward their own wind exerts who conducted modeling ad wind tunnel analysis of wind events surrounding the 2007 fires. To counter SDG&E’s weather experts, UCAN hired two wind experts who examined SDG&E’s wind analysis from different perspectives, and they produced 3 volumes of testimony. In the Decision, the Commission noted the following: “Because we find the methodologies that UCAN’s experts utilized in developing its testimony to be more consistent with the actual weather and wind conditions in San Diego County in October 2007, the Commission does not find that the 2007 Wildfires were spread under unprecedented wind and weather conditions.” Given the help that UCAN’s participation provided to the Commission, we believe that our request of $233,381.38 is reasonable and justified. Travel/lodging costs As can be seen from UCAN’s timesheets, Mr. Kelly traveled to the Commission for both a prehearing conference and for evidentiary hearings. In order to minimize expenses, for the times when Mr. Kelly went to the Commission for more than one proceeding, he sought to divide the costs between the cases. Also, in order to save on lodging, Mr. Kelly, when traveling to the Commission for a multi-day appearance (i.e., evidentiary hearings) he seeks to avoid lodging expenses by staying with CPUC Discussion Verified
216846889.docx