5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

CFC requests $66,098 for its contribution to D.08-11-056, as follows:

Work on Proceeding
Attorney/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2008	185.2	$350	$64,820.00
Subtotal:				$64,820.00
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request (½ rate)
Attorney/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2008	7.3	$175	$1,227.50
Subtotal Hourly Compensation:				$1,227.50
Total Requested Compensation:				$66,097.5028

In general, the components of this request must constitute reasonable fees and costs of the customer's preparation for and participation in a proceeding that resulted in a substantial contribution. Our assessment of the reasonableness of CFC's claim is discussed below.

While CFC did make some contribution, we conclude that the total size of CFC's claim appears somewhat excessive relative to the extent of its contribution. CFC seeks compensation for all of the time that it spent on participation in the proceeding; including time spent advocating positions or recommendations that the Commission ultimately rejected. For example, CFC argued that DWR lacked legal capacity to enter into a novation agreement. The Commission rejected this argument. CFC also advocated that the Commission terminate the proceeding rather than continue to pursue efforts at achieving novation of DWR contracts. If CFC's proposal to terminate the proceeding was not adopted, CFC argued for a reversal of the sequence of procedural phases, to delay proceeding with further novation efforts until the Commission first concluded Phase II (b) as to whether it is in the public interest to reinstitute direct access. The Commission likewise rejected these proposals of CFC and moved forward with a program to implement the expedited removal of DWR from its role of supplying power.

CFC requests compensation for three hours spent drafting a "letter to judge re cost benefit ruling." SCE indicates that it could find no record of such letter in the proceeding or of any ex parte reference notice referring to the letter. The letter referenced by CFC was electronically served on parties, but never officially filed as a formal pleading in the proceeding. The letter did not contribute to the Commission's decision and was not a formal pleading in the proceeding. Thus the hours claimed related to preparing the letter do not warrant an award of intervenor compensation.

CFC requests compensation of over seven hours for a task described as "research re direct access." Given the lack of specific detail in the description, this time appears to be merely background research of a general nature to familiarize CFC with the subject matter of direct access as opposed to specific tasks contributing to the Commission's decision. An allowance for 7 hours merely to acquire general background familiarity with the subject matter at ratepayers' expense appears excessive.

CFC also requests compensation for 11.7 hours merely to review and summarize a workshop transcript. This expenditure of time appears excessive, particularly in combination with the subsequent 15.3 hours spent actually drafting comments on issues addressed at the workshop. We conclude that while CFC should receive some compensation for its contributions, its claim should be reduced somewhat to recognize excessive claim amounts, undue duplication, and hours spent on positions that were rejected and which do not constitute a "substantial contribution."

The supporting documentation provided in CFC's request is not sufficiently detailed to produce a precise assessment of disallowances for each discrete item. Therefore, we shall instead apply a uniform percentage disallowance to CFC's overall claim of hours. This approach is in keeping with our practice in past intervenor compensation claims where duplication was found, we have disallowed costs based upon a range of percentages. In a number of instances, we have applied disallowance percentages between 10% and 33%. Given the circumstances related to this particular situation, although CFC did make a substantial contribution as discussed above in Section 3, we conclude that CFC's total claim exceeds a reasonable limit, and thus warrants a disallowance somewhere within the middle of this range. Accordingly, we shall apply a disallowance equal to 25% of CFC's total claimed costs.

5.1. Hours and Costs Related To and Necessary for Substantial Contribution

We first assess whether the hours claimed for the customer's efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to Commission decisions are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution.

CFC documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. After the reductions and disallowances we make to this claim as discussed above, the remainder of CFC's hourly breakdown reasonably supports its claim for total hours.

5.2. Intervenor Hourly Rates

We next take into consideration whether the claimed fees and costs are comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

CFC seeks an hourly rate of $350 for Alexis Wodtke's work performed in 2008. We previously approved a rate of $340 for Wodtke's work in 2007 in D.08-12-057. The request for Wodtke's new rate includes a 3% COLA increase. We find this amount to be reasonable, and adopt it here.

5.3. Direct Expenses

CFC has no direct expenses for which it seeks compensation.

²⁸ CFC makes a minor computation error in totaling its attorney fees. We correct this error here, and use the corrected amount for consideration of this award.