2017 CCPUC Ethics MCLE January 25, 2017 2:30 4:00 p.m. Ex Parte and - - PDF document

2017 CCPUC Ethics MCLE

January 25, 2017

2:30 – 4:00 p.m.

Ex Parte and Lobbying at the California Public Utilities Commission in 2017

CPUC Auditorium 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA. 94102

This special seminar will examine the changing perspectives on Ex Parte Communications and Lobbying the Commission by providing an overview of the new and existing law, rules and governing ex parte communications and lobbying at the Commission.

Seminar Purpose

Program Schedule Opening Remarks Warm Up & Introductions SB 215 Genesis & Overview Lobbying Rules and the CPUC SB 215 and the New CPUC Ex Parte Rules (plus Q&A) Final Remarks

Ex Parte and Lobbying at the California Public Utilities Commission in 2017

2:30-2:40 2:40-2:45 2:45-3:00 3:00-3:15 3:15-3:55 3:55-4:00

30min. 10 min.

Michael B. Day joined the Goodin MacBride firm in January 1998, from the firm of Wright & Talisman, whose San Francisco office he had opened in 1991. Mr. Day represents a wide variety of clients before the Commission in electric transmission, natural gas, telecommunications, rail safety, and water matters. From 1980-91, he held several positions in the Legal Division at the CPUC, including lead counsel in natural gas matters before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Deputy General Counsel supervising all appellate and advisory matters before the commission; and Acting General Counsel to the CPUC. Prior to joining the Legal Division he was a trial attorney with Thornton, Taylor & Downs in San Francisco, specializing in property insurance litigation.

• Mr. Day received a B.A. from Cornell University in 1973 and a J.D.

from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in

• 1976. Mr. Day is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme

Court and the District of Columbia and Fifth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals

Michael B. Day, Partner Goodin, MacBride, Squeri & Day, LLP Panelist

Tom rejoined TURN in 2010 after previously serving as TURN’s Senior Telecommunications Attorney from 1990 through 1999. Since returning to TURN, Tom has been TURN’s lead representative in many energy and safety-related proceedings at the Commission, including the enforcement cases against PG&E following the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion. In between his former and current stints at TURN, Tom served as the Legal and Telecommunications Advisor to CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch and as a Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. Prior to joining TURN in 1990, Tom was a Litigation Associate for the law firm of Morrison and Foerster in San Francisco and a law clerk for a federal district court judge in San Diego. As a 1998-99 Atlantic Fellow in Public Policy at the University of Glasgow School of Law, Tom researched telecommunications competition in the United Kingdom. He has also taught English in Shanghai, China. Tom has a law degree with Honors from NYU School of Law and an undergraduate degree with High Honors from Swarthmore College.

Tom Long, Legal Director The Utility Reform Network Panelist

• Ms. Mains team is responsible for providing legal guidance to

Sempra’s 13,000 domestic employees, including the company’s two California utilities – SDG&E and Southern California Gas Co. As part of Sempra Energy’s compliance program, Ms. Mains leads training and education, conducting regular sessions that cover topics such as lobbying for federal, state, and local jurisdictions; gifts; fundraising; campaign finance; and conflict of interest laws for hundreds of jurisdictions in 16 states. Mains’ 23 years of professional experience include corporate and project finance, real estate development and political law. She has worked in a variety of roles promoting financial, environmental, and political compliance and integrity. She received her BA in International Business from San Diego State University and her MBA from the University of San Diego and resides in San Diego with her husband and two daughters.

Betsy Mains Political Compliance and Reporting Manager Sempra Energy Panelist

Jerry Brown was a relatively new Governor when I started working at the Commission in 1976. I worked in the Legal Division for about 15 years involved in virtually every subject area, primarily large/ complex energy projects, although I did handle the Commissions’ last commercial aviation matter (yes, we used to have them). While I worked in several units, I was among the group representing the predecessor organization of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, originally called the Public Staff Division. Around 1991 I was appointed Assistant Chief of the Administrative Law Judge Division, initially handling all telecommunications matters and then adding energy ratemaking and other matters as needed. I retired in 2009 and have been brought back periodically to fill in, such assignments including the liaison between Legal Division and the Commission’s Office of Government Affairs, interim Chief of Staff to Commissioner Catherine Sandoval, reprisal of my role as Assistant Chief ALJ, ORA Counsel assisting on the Comcast/Time Warner merger proceeding and, for some time now, partnering with Mary McKenzie as acting Chief Counsel of ORA.

Philip Weismehl, Acting Chief Counsel Office of Ratepayer Advocates Panelist

Zeb enjoys solving complex legal and regulatory problems in innovation sectors. Zeb currently work as a telecommunications attorney, representing wireless, CLEC, VoIP, and internet service providers in state utility regulatory proceedings. Zeb is an AmeriCorps alumnus, received a B.A. from Wesleyan University and a J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law.

Zeb Zankel, Associate Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Moderator

CCPUC MCLE: Ex Parte and Lobbying at the California Public Utilities Commission in 2017

Thomas Long Legal Director

Genesis of SB 215

Ø E-mail disclosures in

wake of San Bruno explosion, SONGS shutdown

Ø Revelations of

repeated abuses of ex parte communications by parties and decisionmakers

2

Nature of Ex Parte Abuses

u Obvious ex parte

communications not reported

u Judge shopping (even

though already banned)

u Secret

communications by decisionmakers to parties about their desired outcomes, e.g. SONGS

11

Nature of ex parte abuses (cont’d)

u Secret horse-trading

between decisionmakers and parties

u Procedural exception

to ex parte coverage allowed to swallow the rule

u Disclosure of

prohibited communications months/years later

12

Nature of Ex Parte Abuses (cont’d)

u Undisclosed

communications between decisionmakers and investor representatives

u Oral communications

• n eve of votes

u Commissioner

regularly voted on motions to recuse him for bias

13

SB 660 Leads to SB 215

u SB 660 (Leno/Hueso)

passed in 2015 in response to abuses

u Reforms included

banning oral ex parte in ratesetting cases and ex parte disclosure in quasi- legislative cases

u SB 660 vetoed by

Governor

u SB 215 (Leno/Hueso) a

compromise to avoid another veto

14

Key Reforms in SB 215

u Gives Commission

discretion to impose stricter ex parte rules as needed

u Sets clear boundary

• n procedural

exception to ex parte rules

u Restricts one-way

communications by decisionmakers

15

Key Reforms in SB 215 (cont’d)

u Bars oral

communications on eve

• f vote in ratesetting

cases

u Requires decisionmaker

disclosure of ex parte communications in adjudication or ratesetting cases

u Clarifies that investor

representatives are covered by ex parte rules

16

Key Reforms in SB 215 (cont’d)

u Reforms standards and

process for disqualification of decisionmakers for bias

u Significantly expands

potential penalties for violations by interested persons

u Allows sanctions against

decisionmakers, enforced by Attorney General

17

Effective Date of SB 215 Reforms

u SB 215 became effective

• n January 1, 2017

u Most provisions do not

require CPUC rulemaking before requirements go into effect

u But for some reforms,

CPUC has responsibility to interpret, or discretion to expand, coverage of the provision

18

CCPUC Ex Parte Seminar January 25, 2017

Betsy Mains
 Political Compliance and Reporting Manager
 Sempra Energy


1 9

} Law: Poli=cal Reform Act of 1974 –

promotes transparency in government

} Purpose: Regulates campaign

financing, conflicts of interest, lobbying, and governmental ethics- public trust

} Enforcement: Governed by the Fair

Poli=cal Prac=ces Commission (FPPC) – 5 member, independent, non- par=san commission Separate and in addi+on to CPUC Ex Parte repor+ng rules

2

LOBBYIST: A lobbyist is a person who has met a threshold with regard to lobbying ac1vity and is required to register in that jurisdic=on.

• State of California: Threshold is 1/3 of your =me in a calendar

month engaged in direct communica=on

LOBBYING ACTIVITY: Broadly defined as a communica1on with a qualifying

• fficial intended to influence legisla=ve or administra=ve

ac=on LOBBYIST EMPLOYER: A company who employs a lobbyist – oZen subject to addi=onal repor=ng requirements and/or restric=ons

You do not have to be a lobbyist to engage in lobbying ac+vity

2 1

Certain CPUC ma[ers must be reported. To know if an ac=on is reportable, there are 3 steps: 1) Determine if the proceeding is a covered proceeding There is NO repor+ng if it is not a ratemaking or quasi- legisla+ve proceeding – check with your counsel if unsure 2) Determine if the ac=vity rela1ng to that proceeding is reportable Direct communica+on Administra+ve tes+mony 3) If direct communica=on, understand if the person you are interac=ng with is a “qualifying official” ALJ Commissioners GCs and other advisors to ALJs and Commissioners

Not all interac+on with the CPUC is reportable.

2 2

} Rate-making proceeding: any

proceeding in which it is reasonably foreseeable that a rate will be established, including, but not limited to, general rate cases, performance- based ratemaking, and other ratesebng mechanisms.

Note: This is defined by the statute and is not necessarily the same as the CPUC’s categoriza=on of “rate-making”.

} Quasi-legisla+ve proceeding: means

any proceeding that involves considera=on of the establishment of a policy that will apply generally to a group or class of persons, but not limited to, rulemakings and inves=ga=ons that may establish ruled affec=ng an en=re industry.

2 3

The following is considered administra+ve tes+mony for the CPUC and may require repor+ng. Time spent on this ac+vity does not count toward lobbyist registra+on.

} Any communica=on made at a public

hearing, public workshop or public forum if an ALJ, Commissioner or advisor is present,

• r if comments are included in the official

record of a covered proceeding, including your prepara=on =me

} Time spent on oral tes=mony or preparing

for oral tes=mony if ac=ng as a witness in a covered proceeding

} Time spent serving as counsel or preparing

witnesses for oral tes=mony in a covered proceeding

2 4

The following is considered direct communica+on in the State of California and may require repor+ng. Time spent on this ac+vity does count toward lobbyist registra+on.

} Engaging directly with a qualifying official (ALJs,

Commissioners or their advisors) in an a[empt to affect the outcome of an ac=ve rate-making

• r quasi-legisla=ve proceeding. Your

prepara=on =me and direct expenses may also be reportable. Note: If you aSend a mee+ng with a registered lobbyist, that +me does not count toward your registra+on threshold, but you may s+ll have to report your ac+vity.

} Time spent encouraging the public to contact

the CPUC in an a[empt to influence the

• utcome of a covered proceeding. May also

include direct expenditures (i.e. hiring a web designer, etc.)

2 5

Covered Proceedings: CA Government Code 82002(b) or (c) – Administra=ve Ac=on. Lobbyist: FPPC Regula=on 18239 - Defini=on of a Lobbyist. Qualifying Official: FPPC Regula=on 18239(d)(5) – Defini=on of a Lobbyist. CPUC Reduced Repor+ng (Lobbyist Employer): FPPC Regula=on 18616(g)(5) Administra+ve Tes+mony: FPPC Regula=on 18239(d)(1) – Defini=on of a Lobbyist Direct Communica+on: FPPC Regula=on 18239(d)(3) – Defini=on of a Lobbyist

2 6

1 LOBBYING AT THE CPUC AND REGISTRATION UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT January 25, 2017 Michael B. Day Goodin, MacBride, Squeri & Day, LLP SB 215 does not change existing law re lobbying the CPUC.

• However, the statement of Legislative intent in Sec. 1701.1(h) makes it more likely that

there will be greater emphasis on enforcing the existing law related to lobbying of the CPUC.

• Many observers have noted some current practitioners may be risking violation of the

current rules by not registering as lobbyists.

• Under new procedures adopted by the Commission and enacted in SB 215, on-line logs
• f ex parte meetings will be readily available, making possible for the FPPC Staff to

monitor who is contacting Commissioners and advisors, thereby obtaining some information as to who might be having sufficient contacts to require registration. IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

• Please note that the Fair Political Practices Act and the FPPC Regulations are extremely

complex and this MCLE presentation is only a summary designed to give you an idea if your or your firm’s activity may require registration.

• You are strongly encouraged to review the FPPC website for additional information and

if you believe you may need to register as a Lobbyist or Lobbying Firm, you should consult a law firm that specializes in political law and lobbying registration and reporting.

• See the links on the final page of this presentation.

What Activity Qualifies as Lobbying?

• Direct communication with a qualifying government official
• (Who is a qualifying government official?)
• A “qualifying official” is:
• Any elected state official;
• Any legislative official;
• Any appointed, elected, or statutory member or director of any

state agency; and

2

• Any staff member of any state agency who makes direct

recommendations to any appointed, elected, or statutory member

• r director of any state agency, or who has decision-making

authority concerning such recommendations. (2 CCR §18239(d)(5))

• Note: This includes Commissioners and their advisors, Division

Directors, ALJs, Hearing Officers, and possibly other higher-level staff.

• for the purpose of influencing Administrative Action or Legislative Action,
• (What is influencing Administrative Action?)
• “Influencing legislative or administrative action” means communicating directly
• r taking any other action for the principal purpose of supporting, promoting,

influencing, modifying, opposing, delaying, or advancing any legislative or administrative action. (2 CCR §18239(d)(4))

• Administrative action means the proposal, drafting, development, consideration,

amendment, enactment, or defeat by any state agency of any rule or regulation. It also includes actions in certain ratemaking proceedings and quasi-legislative

• proceedings. (Cal. Gov’t Code §82002)
• and, the individual receives compensation for the direct communication to influence

government action (above a specified amount). An Important Exemption to the Lobbying Definition

• A conversation by an individual (or an employee of your company) with a qualifying
• fficial that takes place in the company of a registered lobbyist retained by your firm is

not a direct communication that makes the individual a “lobbyist”.

• The exemption also applies to a conversation involving a lobbyist of a trade association
• f which you (or your firm) are a member.
• However, your lobbyist’s activity and payments are reportable.

When are you Required to Register as a Lobbyist or Lobbyist Employer? For Lobbyists:

• In-house lobbyists: Registration required if one third or more of their compensated time

is spent in direct communication with California qualifying officials.

• Contract Lobbyists: Registration required if they receive $2000 or more in a calendar

month for direct communications with qualifying officials (Note: this is not $2000 per client, but $2000 for all direct communication activity).

3 Lobbying Firms:

• A business entity that receives compensation for lobbying and at least one employee or

partner, owner or officer is a lobbyist, or

• A business entity that receives at least $5000 in a calendar quarter for lobbying even if no

employee, partner, owner or officer is registered as a lobbyist. Lobbyist Employers and Lobbying Coalitions Lobbyist Employers:

• An individual, association, local government agency, or business entity that either:
• directly employs an in house lobbyist to influence legislative or administrative

action, or

• retains a lobbying firm to engage in direct communication to influence

legislative or administrative action. Lobbying Coalitions:

• Defined as a group of ten or more persons or entities formed primarily to influence

legislative or administrative action whose members contribute to share the expenses of lobbying.

• A person who only makes payments to a lobbying coalition is not a Lobbyist Employer.

But Don’t Forget $5000 Filers!

• Note: A person must still register as a “$5000 Filer” if they directly or indirectly make

payments of $5000 or more in any calendar quarter to influence legislative or administrative action. What are the paperwork requirements for a Registered Lobbyist?

• To Start Lobbying, the Lobbyist, Lobbying Firm, and Lobbyist Employer must register

with the Secretary of State (SOS) within 10 days after qualifying as a lobbyist, etc.

• All three types of entities must file Quarterly Reports with the SOS by the end of the

month following each calendar quarter.

• If the payments or related expenses are over $2500, all filing must be done electronically.

4

• The key forms are:
• Form 601 Lobbying Registration Statement
• Form 602 Lobbying Firm Activity Authorization
• Form 603 Lobbyist Employer or Lobbying Coalition Registration Statement
• Form 604 Lobbyist Certification Statement
• Form 605 Amendment to Registration
• Form 606 Notice of Termination (when the Lobbyist, Firm or Employer ceases

all lobbying activity during a legislative session).

• Form 615 Lobbyist Report
• Form 625 Report of Lobbying Firm
• Form 635 Report of Lobbyist Employer and Report of Lobbying Coalition
• Form 645 Report of $5000 Filer

Special Reporting for Payments for PUC Administrative Testimony

• Lobbyist Employers and Coalitions must report quarterly Payments in Connection with

Administrative Testimony at the CPUC.

• These payments are limited to ratemaking and quasi-legislative proceedings.
• The amounts reported must include legal fees to attorneys (other than lobbyists)

for time spent appearing as counsel and preparing testimony. It must also include compensation to all witnesses for preparing to testify and for time spent testifying.

• Payments for “grass-roots” lobbying to influence the PUC are also reportable.

Other Requirements

• Every Lobbyist must take a lobbyist ethics course (conducted by the Assembly and

Senate Ethics Committees) within 12 months of registration for the first time, and must take the course again if they have not taken the course within 12 months of renewing the certification.

• Campaign Contributions must be reported (if they total over $100 per year).
• Gift restrictions, Home Hospitality restrictions. Lobbyists and lobbying firms may not

make or act as an agent to give a gift, or “arrange” to give a gift in excess of $10 in a calendar month, nor make gifts aggregating more than $460 per calendar year.

• There are many detailed rules regarding what constitutes a gift or arranging for a gift,

including items such as tickets to events, meals, or attendance at functions. Educational tours and informational material are not considered gifts.

5 Resources for Complying with the Fair Political Practices Act The website of the Fair Political Practices Commission is a key resource for entities that are considering lobbying or registering to do so. You can find it at: http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ On the site under the tab “The Law” you can find links to the current version of the Fair Political Practices Act. See http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS- Documents/LegalDiv/The%20Political%20Reform%20Act/2016-act-final-highlighted.pdf You can also obtain the FPPC’s Regulations and decisions implementing the Act. See http://www.fppc.ca.gov/the-law/fppc-regulations/regulations-index.html Under the tab “Learn” you can find a useful Lobbying Disclosure Manual, which contains the rules regarding lobbying, plus links to all the key forms necessary to commence lobbying and to file the necessary reports. See http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/lobbyist-rules/lobbying-manual-and-forms.html The FPPC will also accept written or electronic requests for advice or explanations about the statutes and regulations affecting lobbying. See http://www.fppc.ca.gov/advice.html

Michael B. Day

tel 415.392.7900 | fax 415.398.4321

505 Sansome Street, Suite 900 | San Francisco, CA 94111 mday@goodinmacbride.com www.goodinmacbride.com

MBD/FIRM/X187977.v1

Michael B. Day, Partner Goodin, MacBride, Squeri & Day, LLP

SB 215 and the New Ex Parte Rules at the CPUC

1 SB 215 AND THE NEW EX PARTE RULES AT THE CPUC REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR MCLE PRESENTATION FOR CCPUC January 25, 2017 Michael B. Day Goodin, MacBride, Squeri & Day, LLP

• There are numerous changes to the Code in SB 215, you have been given a copy of

the changes in the law, study them carefully!

• The CPUC will adopt new regulations this year to implement SB 215’s provisions,

including details of the ex parte rules. You should consider participating in the rulemaking process, this will be initiated by the Governance Committee on Feb. 8th, and you should certainly closely follow its results.

• Let’s review the major changes in the bill:
• 1. Disqualification of Commissioners or ALJs The Commission will adopt new rules to

govern the disqualification of Commissioners or ALJs for bias or prejudice, including actions taken outside the record of a proceeding.

• 2. Definition of an Ex Parte Communication The Commission will adopt a new definition of

an ex parte communication as “any oral or written communication between a decisionmaker and an interested party concerning any matter before the commission that the commission has not specified in its rules….as being a procedural matter, and does not occur in a public hearing, workshop or…on the official record….”

• 3. Definition of Interested Person Expanded This now includes anyone with a financial

interest in a matter before the commission, including someone involved with a financial rating agency, or anyone else the Commission may define by rule as an interested person in its newly adopted rules.

• 4. Definition of Decisionmaker The Commission will adopt new rules to define
• Decisionmakers. Advisors to commissioners are now expressly to be included, but the

General Counsel and the Executive Director are not included by statute, although the Commission is free to modify the decision when it adopts its new rules.

2

• 5. New Rules for Reporting Ex Parte Communications and Sanctions for Noncompliance

The Commission’s new rulemaking will also address the full scope of the rules for reporting ex parte communications and sanctions for non-compliance with the statute and the rules.

• 6. Certain Practices are Banned One-way communications from Decisionmakers to

interested parties are to be banned. Parties are banned from communications as to the assignment of commissioners or ALJs to specific proceedings at the Commission.

• 7. Statutory Rules for Reporting Ex Parte Communications The minimum requirements

for reporting ex parte communications in ratesetting cases (and reporting prohibited communications in adjudicatory cases if they occur) are set forth:

• a. written notice filed within three days, stating the date, time, and location of the

communication, whether it was written, oral or both, and the medium used;

• b. the notice must state the identity of the decisionmaker, the person initiating the

communication, and the names of all persons present, as well as the topic of the communication, including all proceeding numbers applicable;

• c. the notice must provide a substantive description of the interested persons

communication and its content;

• d. the notice must include any written material used in the meeting;
• e. the decisionmaker must log the ex parte communication by filing with the

Commission a notice that includes essentially the same information, but just a “brief description of the communication.”

• 8. Procedural Steps in the Event of a Violation If an interested party does not file an ex parte

notice after a Decisionmaker files his or her log of an ex parte contact, it will be referred to the General Counsel to order the interested party to file a notice. Failure to comply subjects the party to sanctions for continuing violations of the statutory provisions of SB 215.

• a. The rules for reporting ex parte communications do not apply if all parties were given

three days’ notice of the meeting and invited to attend.

• b. If a notice of a prohibited ex parte contact has been filed, the Commission cannot vote
• n any matter related to that proceeding until all parties have been provided an
• pportunity to respond.
• c. If an ex parte communication was not properly disclosed until after the Commission

voted on a matter, parties not involved in the communication may file a petition to rescind or modify the decision.

• 9. Ex Parte Communications at Conferences Ex Parte communications at conferences are

governed by the requirements of the ex parte disclosure requirements, and the Commission shall develop rules that apply specifically to conferences. Such communications include contacts that take place at meals, informal events, tours, or entertainment.

3

• 10. The Commission may meet in Closed Session for Administrative Matters This is to be

defined by the Commission (and relates to the management committee structure adopted by the Commission).

• 11. Written Comments from the Public may be included in the public record of a

proceeding, but are not “evidence” and parties may have an opportunity to respond to the written public comments.

• 12. Intent of Legislature that Political Reform Act of 1974 applies to parties seeking to

influence action of CPUC. This is not a change in existing law.

• 13. Section 1701.2 Adjudication Cases - No oral or written communications with decision

makers permitted, even about procedural matters, except procedural matters may be discussed with the ALJ. Other than that, few changes.

• 14. Section 1701.3 Ratesetting Cases
• a. The Commission can prohibit ex parte communications in a ratesetting case if it

chooses to do so;

• b. All oral ex parte communications require 3 day advance written notice to all parties,

including meetings with advisors as well as commissioners;

• c. no individual meetings allowed within 3 days of a scheduled vote on a decision

(presumably one related to the subject of the meeting- this needs clarification in the CPUC rulemaking) NOTE: This prohibits last minute contacts about revisions to Commission decisions except in writing with service to all parties!

• d. the right to an equal time meeting applies to meetings with Commissioners or other

decisionmakers, but not to meetings at which only advisors are present.

• e. Written ex parte communications still permitted if served on all parties the same day,

as under present practice at the Commission;

• f. an ex parte ban may be imposed during a “quiet time” associated with a closed

session (Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting).

• 15. Section 1701.4 Quasi Legislative Cases
• a. The Commission can prohibit ex parte communications in quasi legislative

proceedings or require reporting of such communications in specific cases if it chooses to do so.

• b. Otherwise, ex parte contacts without reporting or other restrictions are allowed in

such cases.

• 16. Sanctions The sanctions for violations of ex parte restrictions in the Code are much

stricter, including civil penalties that can go as high as $50,000 per day for a continuing

4 violation of the rules, with each day of non-compliance constituting a separate violation. In addition, the Attorney General can enforce the provisions of the code against a Commissioner or employee of the Commission for violation of the rules.

Michael B. Day

tel 415.392.7900 | fax 415.398.4321

505 Sansome Street, Suite 900 | San Francisco, CA 94111 mday@goodinmacbride.com www.goodinmacbride.com

MBD/FIRM/X187936.v1

CCPUC 2017 Ethics MCLE Certificate and Eval - MCLE– Ex Parte and Lobbyibg– 1-25-17.docx

CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE FOR CALIFORNIA MCLE

PROVIDER Conference of California Public Utility Counsel (“CCPUC”) - #1321_____ SUBJECT MATTER/TITLE

“Ex Parte and Lobbying at the California Public Utilities

Commission in 2017”

Panelists: Michael Day (Goodin, MacBride, et al.), Phil Weismehl (ORA), Tom Long (TURN), Betsy Mains (Sempra Energy), and Panel Moderator, Zeb Zankel (Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP) DATE/TIME OF ACTIVITY January 25, 2017 LOCATION CPUC Auditorium 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco LENGTH OF ACTIVITY 1.5 hours (2:30 – 4:00 p.m.)____________________ ELIGIBLE CALIFORNIA MCLE CREDIT TOTAL HOURS: 1.5 PREVENTION, DETECTION LEGAL ETHICS: ___1.5____ AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE: ________ ELIMINATION OF BIAS: IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION _______ GENERAL: _______ ______

To Be Completed By Attorney After Participation In Activity

By signing below, I certify that I participated in the activity described above and am entitled to claim the following California MCLE hours, including: TOTAL HOURS: 1.5

PREVENTION, DETECTION

AND TREATMENT OF LEGAL ETHICS: ___1.5___ SUBSTANCE ABUSE: ________ ELIMINATION OF BIAS: IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION ______ GENERAL: __________

__________________________________________ Signature Date January 25, 2017

REMINDER: Keep this record of attendance for 4 years. In the event that you are audited by the State Bar, you may be required to submit this record of attendance to the State Bar. Send to the State Bar only if you are audited. You must sign in

• n the Official Record of Attendance for California MCLE maintained by this provider in order for these hours to qualify for

California MCLE credit. Provided as a courtesy by the State Bar Committee on Minimum Continuing Legal Education.

CCPUC 2017 Ethics MCLE Certificate and Eval - MCLE– Ex Parte and Lobbyibg– 1-25-17.docx

ACTIVITY EVALUATION FORM FOR CALIFORNIA MCLE

Please complete and return to Provider Please Print

Provider Name

Conference of California Public Utility Counsel (“CCPUC”)

Provider Address

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770_________

Title of Activity

“Ex Parte and Lobbying at the California Public Utilities

Commission in 2017”

Panelists: : Michael Day (Goodin, MacBride, et al.), Phil Weismehl (ORA), Tom Long (TURN), Betsy Mains (Sempra Energy), and Panel Moderator, Zeb Zankel (Davis Wright Tremaine)

Date of Offering: 1/25/2017 Site: CPUC Auditorium 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco Name of Participant (optional) _____________________________________________________________________________________ First Last

Directions: On a scale of 1-5 (5 being the highest, best or most and 1 being the least, lowest or worst) rate by circling the number reflecting your opinion. To what extent were your personal objectives satisfied 5 4 3 2 1 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ To what extent did the environment contribute to the learning experience? 5 4 3 2 1 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

To what extent did the written materials contribute to the learning experience? 5 4 3 2 1

Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________

CCPUC 2017 Ethics MCLE Certificate and Eval - MCLE– Ex Parte and Lobbyibg– 1-25-17.docx

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ To what extent were the objectives stated in the promotional literature or those stated at the beginning of the activity satisfied? 5 4 3 2 1 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ To what extent did the activity contain significant current intellectual

• r practical content?

5 4 3 2 1 Comments: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Please rate the faculty on the same scale. Overall Teaching Effectiveness Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Significant Current Intellectual or Practical Content Instructor's Name: Michael Day 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Subj/Topic ________________________________________ Comments: _________________________________________ ___________ _____________ _______________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

CCPUC 2017 Ethics MCLE Certificate and Eval - MCLE– Ex Parte and Lobbyibg– 1-25-17.docx

Overall Teaching Effectiveness Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Significant Current Intellectual or Practical Content Instructor's Name: Phil Weismehl 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Subj/Topic ________________________________________ Comments: _________________________________________ ___________ _____________ _______________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Overall Teaching Effectiveness Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Significant Current Intellectual or Practical Content Instructor's Name: Tom Long 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Subj/Topic ________________________________________ Comments: _________________________________________ ___________ _____________ _______________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

CCPUC 2017 Ethics MCLE Certificate and Eval - MCLE– Ex Parte and Lobbyibg– 1-25-17.docx

Overall Teaching Effectiveness Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Significant Current Intellectual or Practical Content Instructor's Name: Betsy Mains 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Subj/Topic ________________________________________ Comments: _________________________________________ ___________ _____________ _______________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Overall Teaching Effectiveness Effectiveness of Teaching Methods Significant Current Intellectual or Practical Content Instructor's Name: Zeb Zankel (Moderator) 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 Subj/Topic ________________________________________ Comments: _________________________________________ ___________ _____________ _______________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________