6. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

Greenlining requested $429,213.01 for its participation in this proceeding. Included in the request was the following breakdown:

REQUESTED HOURLY BILLING SUMMARY

Attorney/Advocate	Year	Rate	Hours Billed	Total Fees $
Robert Gnaizda	2006	$505	17.9	9,039.50
Robert Gnaizda	2007	$520	382.0	198,640.00
Robert Gnaizda	2008	$540	45.8	24,732.00
Gnaizda				$232,411.50
Thalia Gonzalez	2006	$195	17.014	3,315.00
Thalia Gonzalez	2007	$205	453.2	92,906.00
Thalia Gonzalez	2008	$215	51.515	11,072.50
Gonzalez				$107,293.50
Jessie Raskin	2008	$190	83.016	15,770.00
Raskin				$15,770.00
Bobak Roshan	2007	$110	161.0	17,710.00
Roshan				$17,710.00
Stephanie Chen	2007	$110	104.3	11,473.00
Chen				$11,473.00
John Gamboa	2007	$450	55.5	24,975.00
Gamboa				$24,975.00
Orson Aguilar	2007	$250	11.1	2,775.00
Aguilar				$2,775.00
Michael Phillips	2007	$390	43.0	16,770.00
Phillips				$16,770.00
Subtotal				$429,178.00
Direct Expenses				$35.01
Grand Total				$429,213.0117

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.

6.1. Reasonable Hourly Rates

In determining compensation, we take into consideration the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons. Several of Greenlining's participants have existing rates approved by the Commission for work performed in the same calendar years. We use the same rates for those individuals without further discussion.

Greenlining requests hourly rates of $195 in 2006 and $205 in 2007 for the work of Thalia Gonzalez, Greenlining's senior legal counsel, who has 3-4 years of legal experience. Gonzalez has previously established rates before the Commission of $165 in 2006 in D.07-11-013 and $195 in 2007 in D.08-05-015. We apply the same rates here. Greenlining requests an hourly rate of $215 for her work in 2008, but provides no justification for this request. Absent any justification, we adopt a rate of $200 for 2008 work, equal to the 2007 rate of $195 plus a 3% Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase.

Greenlining requests an hourly rate of $190 for the 2008 work of Jesse Raskin, an attorney with 1 year of experience before the Commission. Raskin had a 2007 rate approval of $100 in D.08-05-015 for work he performed as a law clerk. We adopted a rate of $180 for work performed in 2008 in D.09-11-031 (in A.07-11-011), and use the same rate here.

Greenlining requests an hourly rate of $450 for Gamboa's work as an expert in 2007. We have previously approved a rate of $380 for his 2007 work in D.07-11-013 and apply the same rate here.

Greenlining requests an hourly rate of $250 for Aguilar's work in 2007 as an advocate. Aguilar has over 10 years of experience as an advocate for California's minority and low-income ratepayers, but has no previous set rate for appearance before the Commission. We adopt a more reasonable rate of $230, which is within the mid-upper range of $150-$260 approved for experts with 7-12 years of experience.

Greenlining requests an hourly rate of $390 for Phillips's work in 2007 as an expert, but provides no other justification for this request. Phillips has a previously established rate of $345 for his 2006 work before the Commission in D.07-06-020. Absent any justification, we adopt a rate of $355 for his 2007 work, equal to the 2006 rate of $345 plus a 3% COLA increase.

ADOPTED HOURLY BILLING RATES

Attorney/Advocate	Year	Rate Proposed	Adopted Rate
Robert Gnaizda	2006	$505	$505
Robert Gnaizda	2007	$520	$520
Robert Gnaizda	2008	$540	$535
Thalia Gonzalez	2006	$195	$165
Thalia Gonzalez	2007	$205	$195
Thalia Gonzalez	2008	$215	$200
Jessie Raskin	2008	$190	$180
Bobak Roshan	2007	$110	$110
Stephanie Chen	2007	$110	$110
John Gamboa	2007	$450	$380
Orson Aguilar	2007	$250	$230
Michael Phillips	2007	$390	$355

6.2. The Hours and Costs Necessary
for a 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.

Greenlining has documented its claim by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours for its attorneys with a brief description of each activity, and a list of its consultant fees which were billed monthly. The detailed explanation of the hours Greenlining spent on the proceeding is not consistent with the scope and the complexity of the issues considered in the proceeding. The hourly breakdown does not reasonably support the claim for total hours. For example, Greenlining fails to present any total for individual activities thus making it very difficult to determine the reasonableness of the request for compensation for any individual issue where Greenlining may have made a substantial contribution.

It is clear from Greenlining's records that it intended even before the applications were filed by SDG&E and SoCalGas to engage in a "settlement." Time records for Gnaizda show 14.8 hours (at a billing rate of $505/hr totaling $7,474) in July and August 2006 before the application was filed in December 2006. Our policy has never permitted recovery of costs incurred before applicants file, absent certain specific circumstances,¹⁸ that are not present here. Further, Greenlining focused only on its proposed settlement and did not consider most issues which were established to be within the scope of the proceeding. Greenlining's interests in office closures were not a primary focus of its effort in this proceeding.

We find, as already discussed, Greenlining is not eligible for compensation for any aspect of the Six-Year Leadership Agreement on philanthropy and diversity because D.08-07-046, as modified by D.09-06-052, held that Greenlining's proposals on diversity and philanthropy were beyond the scope of the proceeding and no order was necessary by the Commission for SDG&E and SoCalGas to honor any voluntary commitment in the agreement to Greenlining.

We find that Greenlining is eligible for compensation on the issue of business office closures. Although the issue is closely linked to questions raised by Disability Rights Advocates on accessibility, we will not narrowly parse the compensation. Turning to Greenlining's request, we can identify only one instance where Greenlining cites an example of working on the issue: 6 hours for Gonzalez on "08/12/07 Research and preparation with S. Chen for P. Petersilia examination; review of PG&E precedent re: counter closure issues 6.0 [hours]." (Request at 30.¹⁹) We note, however, that Chen records no time for any activity on August 12, 2007 although there are hours before and after the 12^th which might apply to the same issue. Thus we find Greenlining's records to be unreliable and inaccurate. Nevertheless, we will allow the following hours:

Gonzalez Reviewing relevant testimony 18 hours²⁰

Preparing for hearings 6 hours (08/12/07)

Hearing 4 hours

Brief& Reply 8 hours

Chen Paralegal Support - general 20 hours

Gnaizda Policy/Supervision 2 hours

Compensation for Office Closure Issue

Gonzalez - 2007	36 hr @ $195/hr	$7,020
Chen - 2007	20 hr @ $110/hr	2,200
Gnaizda - 2007	2 hr @ $520/hr	1,040
Total		$10,260

6.3. Direct Expenses

Greenlining requests reimbursement of $35.01 for postage costs. We find this amount to be reasonable and commensurate with the work performed and approve these costs.

6.4 Productivity

The costs of a customer's participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through its participation. To achieve this goal, D.98-04-059 directed customers to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers.²¹

As set forth in the disallowances we make to this claim, we do not affirm that the majority of Greenlining's efforts were productive, except for the relatively minimal amount of activity it spent on the issue of branch office closure.

¹⁴ See footnote 17.

¹⁵ See footnote 17.

¹⁶ See footnote 17.

¹⁷ In its claim, Greenlining fails to separate the hours spent preparing the NOI and the Request for Compensation which are compensated at ½ rate. Instead, Greenlining provides a footnote that the hours listed for the individuals involved in performing this type of work represent only ½ of the actual hours spent working on these documents. Apply this reasoning, the hours it claimed it worked on these documents would total 41.2. We consider this amount to be unreasonably excessive and discount these hours by 50% to equal 20.6 hours and separate the hours for Gonzalez (8.6 hours) and Raskin (12 hours) as being a more reasonable amount for compensation. We remove these hours from Greenlining's totals and compensate at ½ hourly rate.

¹⁸ See, for example, D.04-08-025 at 14, D.05-05-046 at 7, or D.06-04-065 analysis at 17-20.

¹⁹ Gonzalez's time records incorrectly identify several days as 2008 when they were more likely to be 2007. (Request at 29-20.)

²⁰ Gonzalez (and the other Greenlining personnel) failed to track time by issue and this allowance is a generous assumption that some other amount of time would have been spent reading the application and testimony. Additionally, this minor issue of office closure would not have required extensive time to brief. Finally, we allow 2 hours for a very expensive senior attorney to review the policy position and provide some supervision over Gonzalez. Absent adequate time records by activity, we could withhold any compensation beyond the 6 hours identified for Gonzalez on August 12, 2007.

²¹ D.98-04-059 at 34-35.