13. Identify Final Decision: D1801022 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 1-16-2018 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: 3-5-18 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION: Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059). (For each contribution, support with specific reference to the record.) Specific References to CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s Claimed Intervenor’s Contribution(s) Claimed Contribution(s) 1. Verified Retirement of Diablo Citations to WEM's Work: WEM Cross-examination of Canyon: Economic See PG&E witness Janice Arguments for Early (by Robert Freehling): Retirement: be additional "Q: …[w]ould there WEM presented evidence Diablo Canyon generation … from and analysis showing that as that is not from the bundled load in PG&E's bundled load 2025? decreases, more of DCPP A: If Diablo Canyon actually power will need to be sold at generated energy, there would be a loss on the wholesale excess energy. market. Quoting WEM's Q: And what would be done with work, D1801022 that energy? acknowledges "the potential A: It would be sold into the market. for significant costs that Q: Okay. And do you know about could be incurred between what price that would command on now and 2024/25 …" the open market? A: I don't remember those … specific numbers off the top right now. We have done some analysis for that. Q: Do you know if those numbers that you would sell the power for is equal to or less than the cost of generation? A: It's actually less than. Q: It is less than. So in effect, you are saying that every kilowatt hour or megawatt hour that PG&E that's excess on the margin, essentially you're losing money relative to
13. Identify Final Decision: D1801022 Verified 14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: 1-16-2018 Verified 15. File date of compensation request: 3-5-18 Verified 16. Was the request for compensation timely? Yes PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION: Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059). (For each contribution, support with specific reference to the record.) Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion 1. Retirement of Diablo Canyon: Economic Arguments for Early Retirement: WEM presented evidence and analysis showing that as PG&E's bundled load decreases, more of DCPP power will need to be sold at a loss on the wholesale market. Quoting WEM's work, D1801022 acknowledges "the potential for significant costs that could be incurred between now and 2024/25 …" Citations to WEM's Work: See WEM Cross-examination of PG&E witness Janice (by Robert Freehling): "Q: …[w]ould there be additional generation … from Diablo Canyon that is not from the bundled load in 2025? A: If Diablo Canyon actually generated energy, there would be excess energy. Q: And what would be done with that energy? A: It would be sold into the market. Q: Okay. And do you know about what price that would command on the open market? A: … I don't remember those specific numbers off the top right now. We have done some analysis for that. Q: Do you know if those numbers that you would sell the power for is equal to or less than the cost of generation? A: It's actually less than. Q: It is less than. So in effect, you are saying that every kilowatt hour or megawatt hour that PG&E that's excess on the margin, essentially you're losing money relative to Verified
218186775.docx