5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

CFC requests $124,861.50 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

Work on Proceeding
Attorney/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2008	343.4	$350.00	$120,190.00
Alexis Wodtke	2009	5.1	$350.00	$1,785.00
Subtotal:		348.5		$121,975.00
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request
Attorney/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2008	2.0	$175	$350.00
Alexis Wodtke	2009	13.4	$175	$2,345.00
Subtotal		15.4		$2,695.00
Subtotal Hourly Compensation:				$124,670.00
Expenses				$191.50
Total Requested Compensation				$124,861.50

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.

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 attorney, including a brief description of each activity. 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 that the Commission ultimately rejected. For example, CFC sought specific customer information from the applicants, Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, and California Manufacturers and Technology Association. ALJ Galvin denied CFC's motions to compel these parties to divulge that information and similarly denied CFC's alternative motions to strike their testimony as uncorroborated hearsay should the information not be divulged.¹⁴ In addition, CFC spent time during evidentiary hearings trying to obtain the information and was similarly unsuccessful in obtaining the information sought.

CFC requests compensation for 16.4 hours to summarize the public participation hearing transcripts. This expenditure of time appears excessive, particularly in combination with the subsequent 43.6 hours spent researching and drafting CFC's brief that included information obtained from the public participation hearings.

CFC also requests compensation for work that is clerical or administrative. For example, CFC requests compensation for 5.2 hours to "develop a summary of others' briefs, outline and begin drafting the reply brief." This seems excessive in light of the subsequent 20 hours spent drafting, revising, and finalizing CFC's reply brief. In addition, CFC requested compensation for time spent sending data requests and letters to other parties in the proceeding. We also find small inconsistencies between the time CFC reports for attending certain meetings in San Francisco in 2008, based on the hours shown on the parking receipts for the days of the meetings.¹⁵ We conclude that while CFC should receive some compensation for its contributions, its claim should be reduced somewhat to recognize excessive claim amounts, hours spent on positions that were rejected, and time spent on clerical tasks 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.¹⁶ 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, we have disallowed costs based upon a range of percentages.¹⁷ In a number of instances, we have applied disallowance percentages between 10% and 33%. Given the circumstances related to this particular situation, CFC made a substantial contribution in two out of three areas, as discussed above in Section 3, we conclude that CFC's total claim exceeds a reasonable limit. Accordingly, we shall apply a disallowance equal to 30% of CFC's total claimed compensation costs. 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 advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. CFC seeks an hourly rate of $350 for Alexis Wodtke, for work performed in 2008/2009. We previously approved this rate for 2008 in D.09-07-015 and for 2009 in Resolution ALJ-235. We adopt it here.

5.3. Direct Expenses

CFC itemized direct expenses include the following:

The expenses for printing and photocopying CFC's exhibits are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed. Our practice is to disallow expenses associated with routine travel to attend meetings in San Francisco. For example, in D.07-05-043 we held:

We . . . deny compensation for hours and expenses for consultant travel and attorney parking. Absent extenuating circumstances, it is not reasonable to award compensation for individuals' time and expenses to commute from their homes to attend Commission hearings, or parking expenses. D.07-05-043 at 15.

CFC has not claimed extenuating circumstances. We find it is not reasonable to award compensation for travel expenses claimed by CFC to attend Commission hearings.

¹⁴ CFC billed over 25 hours of time for the three motions to compel.

¹⁵ One example is that CFC billed 2.6 hours to attend the PHC on February 28, 2008. CFC provided a parking receipt for the same date but that receipt charged for only 1.5 hours of parking.

¹⁶ For example, one of CFC's billing entries reads "Talk to DisabRA re PPP hearings; continue review of SCE/SDG&E responses to data requests and letter requesting supplemental responses & send; draft and send letter to ALJ re dates & times for public participation."

¹⁷ D.09-08-024.