I address the requirements of in Attachment B of the instant pleading. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): CPUC Discussion Intervenor’s Assertion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the Yes Yes proceeding? b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions Yes Yes similar to yours? c. If so, provide name of other parties: ORA and TURN Verified Reid collaborated with a number of Verified d. claim of non-duplication: Intervenor’s PRG members during the period January 8, 2015 to June 5, 2016. Reid had private meetings or teleconferences with the following individuals: Michael Yeo of ORA; Marcel Howiger of TURN; Independent Evaluators Lewis Hashimoto and Wayne Oliver; Kevin Woodruff, consultant for TURN; and ORA attorney Cheryl Lee of the Energy Division. Although Reid does not seek compensation for all of these communications, they indicate reasonable collaboration with other PRG members. PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. Concise explanation as to how the cost of participation bears Claimant’s CPUC Discussion a reasonable relationship with benefits realized through participation (include references to record, where appropriate) Verified My participation in PRG allowed me to identify issues in advance PG&E’s of an application and to focus on disputed cases that I believed were the highest priority for ratepayers. Ratepayers benefited because I was able to resolve many issues in the PRG process, thereby reducing the amount of protracted and expensive litigation. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) has pointed out: (R.06-02-013, Reply Comments of San Diego Gas & Electric Company On Pro-posed Decision Regarding Intervenor Compensation Related to Procurement Review Groups, Peer Review Groups and Public Advisory Groups, June 25, 2007, p. 2.) the PRGs and PAGs are advisory in nature, they have greatly “Although
I address the requirements of in Attachment B of the instant pleading. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s Assertion CPUC Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding? Yes Yes b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Yes c. If so, provide name of other parties: ORA and TURN Verified d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: Reid collaborated with a number of PRG members during the period January 8, 2015 to June 5, 2016. Reid had private meetings or teleconferences with the following individuals: Michael Yeo of ORA; Marcel Howiger of TURN; Independent Evaluators Lewis Hashimoto and Wayne Oliver; Kevin Woodruff, consultant for TURN; and ORA attorney Cheryl Lee of the Energy Division. Although Reid does not seek compensation for all of these communications, they indicate reasonable collaboration with other PRG members. Verified PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806): a. Concise explanation as to how the cost of Claimant’s participation bears a reasonable relationship with benefits realized through participation (include references to record, where appropriate) My participation in PG&E’s PRG allowed me to identify issues in advance of an application and to focus on disputed cases that I believed were the highest priority for ratepayers. Ratepayers benefited because I was able to resolve many issues in the PRG process, thereby reducing the amount of protracted and expensive litigation. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) has pointed out: (R.06-02-013, Reply Comments of San Diego Gas & Electric Company On Pro-posed Decision Regarding Intervenor Compensation Related to Procurement Review Groups, Peer Review Groups and Public Advisory Groups, June 25, 2007, p. 2.) “Although the PRGs and PAGs are advisory in nature, they have greatly CPUC Discussion Verified
212192767.docx