2. Background

California's electricity crisis in 2000 prompted many proceedings before this Commission, and these in turn prompted much litigation before state and federal courts at all levels. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) participated vigorously here and in the courts. The compensation award we deal with today relates to some of that participation and to its aftermath. (For a fuller description of relevant events in federal and state courts, see Appendix A to today's decision, which excerpts the "Background" summarized in Decision (D.) 05-04-049.)

For present purposes, we need note only that the courts ultimately upheld the Commission's position against all but one of TURN's challenges. The sole exception concerned the hourly rates initially used by the Commission in calculating the intervenor compensation to be awarded TURN for work performed by TURN's outside counsel in obtaining judicial review. In The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Commission (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 522 (hereafter, TURN v. PUC), the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) found that, in D.05-04-049, the Commission has failed to "account for the difference in services offered by outside counsel experienced in federal trial and appellate litigation and those offered by practitioners before the PUC." Id., 166 Cal. App. 4th at 537. Responding to the court's remand, we modified (in D.10-02-008) the hourly rates for TURN's outside counsel and adjusted the award to TURN for outside counsel's work during the period covered by D.05-04-049.

The only remaining matter is to determine the intervenor compensation to which TURN is entitled for work in obtaining judicial review in these proceedings to the extent TURN's work occurred after the period covered by D.05-04-049. As in the earlier period, TURN used outside counsel (the same firm) for the bulk of the judicial review work. TURN sought compensation in a request filed in February 2009 for this later work. The request is unopposed.¹

¹ In D.05-04-049, we found that TURN had shown the requisite customer status and financial hardship to be eligible for an award of compensation. We do not repeat the findings or the underlying analysis here.