A.16-03-006 ALJ/DH7/ek4
AL/DH7/ek4 Date of Issuance 12/1/2017
Decision 17-11-027 November 30, 2017
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in its 2015 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (U39E). / Application 16-03-006DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 17-05-020
Intervenor: ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY / For contribution to Decision(D.) 17-05-020
Claimed: $14,133.59 / Awarded: $14,088.44
Assigned Commissioner: Martha Guzman Aceves / Assigned ALJ: Darcie L. Houck
PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Brief description of Decision: / D.17-05-020 approved, with adjustments, PG&E’s2017 Decommissioning Cost Estimate of ratepayer contributions necessary to fully fund the decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) and the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant.
B. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:
Intervenor / CPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)):
1. Date of Prehearing Conference: / June 13, 2016 / Verified
2. Other specified date for NOI:
3. Date NOI filed: / June 30, 2016 / Verified
4. Was the NOI timely filed? / Yes
Showing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b) or eligible local government entity status
(§§ 1802(d), 1802.4):
5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / A.16-03-006 / Verified
6. Date of ALJ ruling: / July 26, 2016 / Verified
7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible government entity status? / Yes
Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§1802(h) or §1803.1(b))
9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / A.16-03-006 / Verified
10. Date of ALJ ruling: / July 26, 2016 / Verified
11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? / Yes
Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):
13. Identify Final Decision: / D.17-05-020 / Verified
14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: / June 1, 2017 / Verified
15. File date of compensation request: / July 18, 2017 / Verified
16. Was the request for compensation timely? / Yes
PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION
A. Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(j),
§ 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059).
1. A4NR recommended that PG&E fully evaluate the costs, benefits, and feasibility of a pre-shutdown acceleration of dry cask loading of SNF in the site-specific decommissioning plan for Diablo Canyon that will be prepared consistent with Section 5.4.1 of the Joint Proposal for the Retirement of Diablo Canyon (Joint Proposal) submitted for review in A.16-08-006. / A4NR Direct Testimony (Ex. 31), pp. 2-3; A4NR Opening Brief, pp. 1-3; A4NR Reply Brief, pp. 1-2. Adopted by D.17-05-020 OP#5, COL#5, as narratively discussed at pp. 51-52, 66. / Verified
2. A4NR argued that the Commission’s consideration of direction to PG&E to include consideration of a pre-shutdown acceleration of dry cask loading of SNF in the Diablo Canyon site-specific decommissioning plan is within the scope of the A.16-03-006 proceeding. / A4NR Direct Testimony (Ex. 31), pp. 3-4; A4NR Opening Brief, pp. 3-7; A4NR Reply Brief, pp. 1-2. Embraced in D.17-05-020 narrative description at pp. 51-52. / Verified
3. Consistent with its obligation to support PG&E’s proposed NDCTP revenue requirement pursuant to the Joint Proposal to retire DCNPP, A4NR’s arguments on behalf of item #1 above challenge whether PG&E has met its burden to prove the reasonableness of a 10-year post-shutdown SNF wet storage assumption. This provided support for the Commission’s endorsement of TURN’s recommended 7-year post-shutdown wet storage assumption. / A4NR Direct Testimony (Ex. 31), pp. 3-4; A4NR Opening Brief, pp. 4-7; A4NR Reply Brief, p. 2. A4NR argument acknowledged in D.17-05-020 narrative at p. 32, shorter period embraced in FOF #7, COL #5, and narrative at p. 51. / Verified
4. A4NR identified two items in need of correction in the Proposed Decision. / A4NR Opening Comments on PD, pp. 1-2. Adopted by D.17-05-020 at p. 67. / Verified, but the contribution of these typographical corrections was minimal.
B. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5):
Intervenor’s Assertion / CPUC Discussiona. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding?[1] / Yes / Verified
b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? / No, except for the related issue of whether PG&E met its burden of proof regarding the reasonableness of a 10-year post-shutdown wet cooling assumption for spent nuclear fuel. / Verified
c. If so, provide name of other parties: TURN / Verified
d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication: No other parties addressed the subject of PG&E’s consideration of a DCNPP pre-shutdown acceleration of transfer of spent nuclear fuel to dry casks as a means of reducing decommissioning costs. A4NR waived cross-examination and deferred to TURN’s direct testimony and cross-examination regarding the reasonableness of a 7- vs. 10-year post-shutdown wet cooling assumption, instead focusing on PG&E’s refusal to even consider a pre-shutdown acceleration of dry cask loading. The unreasonableness of PG&E’s assumptions about wet cooling in both periods may have overlapped, but A4NR’s proposed remedy (since it was obligated to support PG&E’s proposed revenue requirement by virtue of the Joint Proposal for the Retirement of Diablo Canyon) focused exclusively on requiring PG&E to expand its study of accelerated dry cask loading to the pre-shutdown period. / Verified
PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION
A. General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):
a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness: Had it not been for A4NR’s participation, PG&E’s study of a pre-shutdown acceleration of dry cask loading would not have been considered in this proceeding. As acknowledged by PG&E, reducing the time SNF is in wet storage reduces decommissioning costs at an annual rate of $65.6 million. While PG&E had agreed to study post-shutdown acceleration pursuant to an earlier settlement with A4NR in A.15-09-001, it offered no plausible rationale for why this analysis should not be extended to the pre-shutdown period. Using PG&E’s metric for savings, A4NR’s efforts will have been cost-effective if the time needed for wet storage is reduced by 2 hours. By contributing to the Commission’s preference for a 7-year planning assumption over PG&E’s asserted 10-year (down from 12 years in the last NDCTP) requirement, reducing costs by nearly $197 million, A4NR’s intervention has already produced ratepayer benefits far in excess of the amount of this compensation request. / CPUC DiscussionVerified
b. Reasonableness of hours claimed: Due to the limitations A4NR agreed to in the Joint Proposal for the Retirement of Diablo Canyon, A4NR’s participation in this proceeding was surgically focused on remedying PG&E’s inattention to wet storage requirements during the pre-shutdown period. A4NR coordinated its efforts with TURN to avoid duplication, and expended a minimal number of hours to accomplish its carefully targeted objective. / Verified
c. Allocation of hours by issue: Pre-shutdown study, 80%; PG&E burden of proof, 20%. / Verified
B. Specific Claim:*
Claimed / CPUC AwardATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES
Item / Year / Hours / Rate $ / Basis for Rate* / Total $ / Hours / Rate $ / Total $
John Geesman / 2016 / 19.97 / 575 / D.16-07-010, Res. ALJ-329 / 11,482.75 / 19.72[2] / $580.00 / $11,437.60
John Geesman / 2017 / 2.56 / 585 / D.16-07-010, Res. ALJ-345 / 1,497.60 / 2.56 / $590.00 / $1,510.40
Rochelle Becker / 2016 / 1.33 / 140 / D.16-07-010, Res. ALJ-329 / 186.00 / 1.33 / $140.00 / $186.20
Rochelle Becker / 2017 / .95 / 145 / D.16-07-010, Res. ALJ-345 / 138.00 / .40[3] / $145.00 / $58.00
Subtotal: $ 13,304.35 / Subtotal: $13,192.20
INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **
Item / Year / Hours / Rate $ / Basis for Rate* / Total $ / Hours / Rate / Total $
John Geesman / 2017 / 0.25 / ½ hourly rate from Res. ALJ-345 / 819.00 / 0.25 / $240.00 / $60.00
John Geesman / 2017 / 2.8 / 292.50 / ½ hourly rate from Res. ALJ-345 / 819.00 / 2.8 / $295.00 / $826.00
Subtotal: $ 819.00 / Subtotal: $886.00
COSTS
# / Item / Detail / Amount / Amount
postage / see Attachment 4 for A4NR postage expenses / 10.24 / $10.24
TOTAL REQUEST: $14,133.59 / TOTAL AWARD: $14,088.44
*We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit the records and books of the intervenors to the extent necessary to verify the basis for the award (§1804(d)). Intervenors must make and retain adequate accounting and other documentation to support all claims for intervenor compensation. Intervenor’s records should identify specific issues for which it seeks compensation, the actual time spent by each employee or consultant, the applicable hourly rates, fees paid to consultants and any other costs for which compensation was claimed. The records pertaining to an award of compensation shall be retained for at least three years from the date of the final decision making the award.
**Travel and Reasonable Claim preparation time are typically compensated at ½ of preparer’s normal hourly rate
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
Attorney / Date Admitted to CA BAR[4] / Member Number / Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)
If “Yes”, attach explanation
John Geesman / June 1977 / 74448 / No
PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS
A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim? / NoB. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see Rule 14.6(c)(6))? / Yes
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility has made a substantial contribution to
D.17-05-020.
2. The requested hourly rates for Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility’s representatives, as adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.
3. The claimed costs and expenses, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed.
4. The total of reasonable compensation is $14,088.44.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. The Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812.
ORDER
1. Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility shall be awarded $14,088.44.
- Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall pay Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility the total award. Payment of the award shall include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning October 01, 2017, the 75th day after the filing of Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility’s request, and continuing until full payment is made.
- The comment period for today’s decision is waived.
This decision is effective today.
Dated November 30, 2017, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES
CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
- 2 -
A.16-03-006 ALJ/DH7/ek4
APPENDIX
Compensation Decision Summary Information
Compensation Decision: / D1711027 / Modifies Decision?Contribution Decision(s): / D1705020
Proceeding(s): / A1603006
Author: / ALJ Houck
Payer(s): / Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Intervenor Information
Intervenor / Claim Date / Amount Requested / Amount Awarded / Multiplier? / Reason Change/DisallowanceAlliance for Nuclear Responsibility / 07/18/17 / $14,133.59 / $14,088.44 / N/A / Non-substantive contribution,
Re-categorized hours
Advocate Information
First Name / Last Name / Type / Intervenor / Hourly Fee Requested / Year Hourly Fee Requested / Hourly Fee AdoptedJohn / Geesman / Attorney / A4NR / $575 / 2016 / $580
John / Geesman / Attorney / A4NR / $585 / 2017 / $590
Rochelle / Becker / Advocate / A4NR / $140 / 2016 / $140
Rochelle / Becker / Advocate / A4NR / $145 / 2017 / $145
(END OF APPENDIX)
[1] The Division of Ratepayer Advocates was renamed the Office of Ratepayer Advocates effective September 26, 2013, pursuant to Senate Bill No. 96 (Budget Act of 2013: public resources), which was approved by the Governor on September 26, 2013.
[2] 0.25 hours spent preparing NOI re-categorized as intervenor compensation preparation hours.
[3] Deduction for .55 hours spent on attendance of ex parte meetings. Such hours did not contribute to any decision.
[4] This information may be obtained through the State Bar of California’s website at http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch .