5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

Greenlining requests a total of $296,085.75 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

Requested Hours and Rates

Greenlining also provided a percentage breakdown of each person's work by issue, as detailed below.

Total Hours Requested by Person and Issue¹⁹

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. The issues we consider to determine reasonableness are 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 a Commission decision are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution. Given the Commission's determination in D.06-10-018 regarding the periodic review of referenced issues,²¹ it was appropriate for Greenlining to address these issues in the current proceeding. Although the Commission concluded that there was no issue with regards to Philanthropy, Supplier Diversity, and Workforce Diversity, the Commission did agree with some of Greenlining recommendations regarding these issues.²² Greenlining's participation also brought these issues to light and provided informative data regarding these issues for consideration by the Commission.

5.1.1. Executive Compensation

As discussed in Sections 3 and 4 above, Greenlining's contribution to the Commission's adjustment of SCE's executive compensation package was substantial in nature. In addition to Greenlining, two other parties (DRA and TURN) also contributed to the Commission's decision regarding executive compensation. No specific adjustments offered by Greenlining were referenced in D.09-03-025, as they were for DRA and TURN, but the Commission found their contribution useful enough to the process to highlight their involvement regarding the issue of executive compensation. In testimony submitted during this case, for example, Greenlining compared SCE executive compensation with the compensation received by the Governor and Commissioners,²³ illustrating the "inflated compensation"²⁴ received by SCE executives. Greenlining also submitted numerous exhibits in support of its concerns regarding SCE's level of executive compensation, including extensive data on those SCE employees earning $1 million or more,²⁵ the salaries of SCE's chief executive officer and chairman of the board,²⁶ and a list of the top ten highest paid employees at SCE for the years 2006 and 2007.²⁷

Greenlining also demonstrated that its concerns regarding executive compensation are shared by many others by submitting a report issued by the United States House of Representatives, Executive Pay: Conflicts of Interest Among Compensation Consultants, ²⁸ which discusses the financial conflict of interest by corporate consultants that provide executive compensation advice as well as other services to the corporations. In particular, the report discusses the concern that consultants are paid millions of dollars by the same executives whose pay scales they are supposed to objectively evaluate.

Given the extent of its involvement in the case as described above, all time allocated by Greenlining to executive compensation is approved.

5.1.2. Philanthropy

In his ruling of March 26, 2008, President Peevey authorized the inclusion of the issue of Philanthropy and Corporate Giving in the scope of this proceeding, even though the Commission does not have jurisdiction over this issue.²⁹ President Peevey stated, in part, "I will permit the parties to this proceeding to address the issues of corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility."³⁰ Subsequent to this, Greenlining recommended that the Commission not order SCE to make a commitment to philanthropic efforts, but instead, that this commitment by SCE be voluntary.³¹ The Commission agreed with this recommendation, stating that "We strongly encourage Edison to establish meaningful goals for the amount of pre-tax earnings it dedicates to corporate philanthropy as well as goals for the share of these monies that are committed to underserved communities."³² Greenlining also submitted numerous exhibits, providing comparative data on the current philanthropic effort of SCE³³ versus other utilities, including Pacific Gas and Electric Company,³⁴ AT&T,³⁵ and Edison International.³⁶

Given the extent of its involvement in the case as described above, all time allocated by Greenlining to philanthropy is approved.

5.1.3. Supplier Diversity

Greenlining recommended that the Commission not take any specific action regarding supplier diversity, preferring that SCE make a voluntary commitment in regards to its supplier diversity efforts.³⁷ In accord with this recommendation, the Commission encouraged SCE "to meet and exceed its goals in this important area."³⁸ Greenlining also submitted a comparison of SCE's Minority Women Procurement efforts as a percent of Total SCE Procurement, illustrating SCE's current efforts in the area of supplier diversity.³⁹

Given the extent of its involvement in the case as described above, all time allocated by Greenlining to supplier diversity is approved.

5.1.4. Workforce Diversity

Greenlining recommended that SCE should continue increasing management diversity through the setting of annual goals.⁴⁰ The Commission agreed with this recommendation, encouraging SCE to build on its successes regarding inclusion of African Americans and other diverse groups in upper management.⁴¹ Greenlining also submitted a letter from SCE, detailing the number of African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans that are in the top 100, 500, and 1,000 earners at SCE⁴²; illustrating the current level of management diversity at SCE.

Given the extent of its involvement in the case as described above, all time allocated by Greenlining to workforce diversity is approved.

5.1.5. Rate Increase and Low Income Customers

The Commission did not act on Greenlining's recommendation that SCE's application be withdrawn.⁴³ Also, the Commission, in D.09-03-025, did not discuss any contribution by Greenlining in regards to the rate increase or the effect of that rate increase on low-income customers.

In its intervenor compensation request, Greenlining states that its contribution was unique, because it "was the only intervenor representing solely the interests of low-income communities."⁴⁴ It must be noted that DRA and TURN, also parties in this case, as part of their advocacy for all customers, also advocated for low-income customers. Therefore, even if Greenlining were the only party that solely represented low-income customers, other parties actively advocated for low-income customers as well.

Since Greenlining provided no substantial contribution regarding the rate increase or its effect on low-income customers, we disallow all of the time allocated to this issue.

5.1.6. Preparation of Intervenor Compensation Request

The amount of time Greenlining has requested for the drafting of its request for intervenor compensation is reasonable.

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. A comparison of requested and adopted hourly rates is provided in Appendix A to this decision.

Greenlining seeks hourly rates of $520 and $535 for work performed by Robert Gnaizda in 2007 and 2008, respectively. We previously approved these rates for Robert Gnaizda in D.09-03-042⁴⁵ and D.09-06-016,⁴⁶ respectively, and adopt them here.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $230 for work performed by Thalia Gonzalez in 2007. We previously approved an hourly rate of $195 for Thalia Gonzalez for 2007 in D.09-03-042,⁴⁷ and utilize it here. Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $300 for work performed by Thalia Gonzalez in 2008. In this proceeding, Gonzales has four years of experience appearing before the Commission. We adopt an hourly rate here of $215 for work performed by Thalia Gonzalez in 2008.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $235 for work performed by Samuel Kang in 2008 and 2009. We previously approved an hourly rate of $180 for work performed by Samuel Kang in 2008 in D.09-06-016, and utilize it here for work performed in 2008.⁴⁸ We apply a 5% step-increase to Kang's 2008 rate but disallow a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase for 2009, pursuant to Resolution ALJ-235. We adopt an hourly rate of $190 for work performed by Samuel Kang in 2009.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $205 for work performed by Jesse Raskin in 2008. We previously approved a rate of $100 for work performed by Jesse Raskin in 2007 for work performed prior to his passing the California State Bar exam.⁴⁹ Given that Jesse Raskin has passed the Bar and has 0-2 years experience, we adopt an hourly rate of $180 for work performed by Jesse Raskin in 2008.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $205 for work performed by Stephanie Chen in 2008 and 2009. We approved an hourly rate of $100 for Chen's 2007 work in D.08-12-057. Based on the fact that Stephanie Chen is a legal fellow, not an attorney and now has two years experience before the CPUC, we apply a 3% COLA to her previously adopted 2007 rate and adopt an hourly rate of $115 for work performed by Chen in 2008. Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-235, we apply the same rate to her 2009 work preparing Greenlining's request for intervenor compensation in this proceeding.

5.3. Direct Expenses

Greenlining has requested $110.75 for postage. We find this expense to be reasonable and commensurate with the work performed.

¹⁹ See Appendix B for percentage breakdown by person and issue, in July 5, 2009 response to request from ALJ.

²⁰ Greenlining allocates the remainder of its time to "Rate Increase." Given that Greenlining did not identify specific hours with regards to the effect of the rate increase on low-income customers, we conclude that this component represents both the issues of the proposed rate increase and the effect of this proposed rate increase on low-income customers.

²¹ Supplier Diversity, Workforce Diversity, Philanthropy, and Executive Compensation.

²² D.09-03-025 at 390, 310, 313, and 314.

²³ Exhibit GLI-02 at 39.

²⁴ Exhibit GLI-02 at 39.

²⁵ Exhibits GLI-18 and GLI-19.

²⁶ Exhibits GLI-21 and GLI-31.

²⁷ Exhibit GLI-42.

²⁸ Exhibit GLI-22.

²⁹ Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Clarifying Scope, March 26, 2008 at 1.

³⁰ Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Clarifying Scope, March 26, 2008 at 1-2.

³¹ Exhibit GLI-01 at 8.

³² D.09-03-025 at 309.

³³ Exhibit GLI-13.

³⁴ Exhibit GLI-27.

³⁵ Exhibit GLI-28.

³⁶ Exhibit GLI-32.

³⁷ Exhibit GLI-01 at 11.

³⁸ D.09-03-025 at 313.

³⁹ Exhibit GLI-43.

⁴⁰ Exhibit GLI-02 at 15.

⁴¹ D.09-03-025 at 314.

⁴² Exhibit GLI-34.

⁴³ Exhibit GLI-4 at 11.

⁴⁴ Request for the Greenlining Institute for an Award of Compensation for Substantial Contribution to Decision 09-03-025 at 10, filed May 11, 2009.

⁴⁵ D.09-03-042 at 38.

⁴⁶ D.09-06-016 at 50.

⁴⁷ D.09-03-042 at 38-39.

⁴⁸ D.09-06-016 at 50-51.

⁴⁹ D.09-03-042 at 39.