5. Reasonableness of SFCP's Requested Compensation

We next consider 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.

SFCP requests $101,943.41 for its participation in this proceeding. SFCP proposes the following rates and hours for its consultants and attorney:

Attorney/Staff	Rate	Hours	Total
Edward G. Poole	$3508	129.75	$57,837.509
Steven Moss	$205	127.00	$41,010.00
Paul Liotsakis, Assistant		20.00	$1,700.00
Kerry Fleisher/Clerical		18.00	$900.00
Expenses			$435.91
GRAND TOTAL			$101,943.41

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. SFCP's 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 a substantial contribution to the 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.

The majority of SFCP's efforts in this proceeding were devoted to continuing and adequately supporting the SCAP program that it administers for PG&E. Although SFCP maintains it did not request compensation for its work related to that issue, we disagree. SFCP is requesting compensation for 294 hours of work. Approximately 75-80 percent of SFCP's advocacy in this proceeding was related to SCAP. Accordingly we deny compensation to SFCP for its work in this proceeding that concerns the program for which it receives funding, the SCAP.

SFCP's request for compensation did not allocate its hours according to issue area, as required by Rule 17.4(b). SFCP has been advised in the past that its requests should provide greater detail about SFCP's work, specifically that hours should be allocated by issue area. However, we grant SFCP compensation only for that portion of its work in this proceeding not related to SCAP because SFCP's efforts in other areas (discussed above) contributed to the resolution of those issues. We disallow 75% of the hours claimed (after adjustments for errors made in billing and errors made in requesting compensation for another proceeding as discussed below). We caution SFCP that we may make even larger disallowances in the future if it again fails to allocate its time and costs among issues.

SFCP included in its request for intervenor compensation eight (8) hours of time that Poole spent advocating in C.08-10-015.¹⁰ For example, SFCP included time spent attending the PHC in C.08-10-015 in the time and billing submitted for this proceeding. SFCP may not claim intervenor compensation for work in another proceeding.

5.2. Hourly Rates

SFCP requests an hourly rate of $350 for Edward Poole. SFCP argues the rate is justified because Poole is an attorney with more than 22 years of energy and regulatory legal experience. SFCP contends that an hourly rate of $350 for an attorney with Poole's background and experience is reasonable given that the rates for TURN's legal advocates are in excess of $400 per hour. We find that Poole's requested rate is reasonable because it is within the hourly intervenor rates adopted by the Commission in D.08-04-010 for attorneys with similar background and experience.

SFCP states that Moss has testified many times before the Commission, he has a degree in public policy from the University of Michigan, and is the Executive Director of SFCP. D.07-04-010 awarded Moss $180 for work conducted in 2006. SFCP does not attempt to justify a rate increase to $205 for Moss. However, we increase the previous rate for Moss to add the cost-of-living allowance (COLA) as follows:

Year Rate COLA

2007 185 3%¹¹

2008 190 3%¹²

2009 190 0%¹³

The rate of Moss, therefore, is set at $190 per hour for work conducted in 2008-2009.

SFCP requests a rate of $85 per hour for Paul Liotsakis. Liotsakis has a Master of Business Administration degree and leads SFCP's low-income and small business programs. Liotsakis has been compensated for work before the Commission in the past. Most recently, D.07-04-010 authorized an hourly rate of $45 in 2006 for Liotsakis. SFCP again does not attempt justify a rate increase to $85 for Liotsakis. The rate requested is almost to double the hourly rate granted for Liotsakis's time in 2006. However, we will grant a smaller increase to $55 from the previous rate for Liotsakis to acknowledge both an increase in the COLA and the additional years of experience.¹⁴

Fleisher is SFCP's Office Manager and provided research and clerical support for the work conducted here. Again, SFCP failed to break down the time spent by Fleisher to show what percent of her time was allocated to research and what percentage was clerical work. As a result of SFCP's failure to break down the time spent by Fleisher, we estimate that her time was equally divided between research and clerical work. Clerical work is considered a routine task that is included in overhead, which should be captured in an attorney's hourly rates consistent with our standard practice.¹⁵ We reduce the compensation requested for Fleisher's time by 50%.¹⁶ We find the rate of $50 to be consistent with rates authorized for similar work and to be reasonable.

In addition, hours spent preparing the claim for intervenor compensation are permitted but at half the approved hourly rate. SFCP inadvertently failed to reduce the hourly rate on 1.5 hours of time spent by Poole on "Finalize request for Compensation." Time spent on preparation of a claim for intervenor compensation must be billed at half the approved hourly rate. Thus, we reduce SFCP's claim accordingly.

5.3. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by SFCP include the following:

The cost breakdown included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. We find these costs reasonable.

⁸ SFCP states in its request for intervenor compensation that it is requesting a rate of $350 per hour. However, the timesheet submitted reflects a rate of $450 per hour. In light of the fact that SFCP justifies Poole's rate as being below that of the advocates for The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Disability Rights Advocates, we understand the rate shown in the timesheet to be an oversight.

⁹ Because of the error reflected on Poole's timesheets, the total shown reflects the higher hourly rate.

¹⁰ SFCP states that it waived its right to collect over $11,000 in fees and costs related to the complaint proceeding. However, we note that a small number of hours related to C.08-10-015 were included in the time sheets submitted by Poole.

¹¹ D.07-01-009 authorized a 3% COLA over an expert's authorized 2006 hourly rate.

¹² D.08-04-010 authorized a 3% COLA adjustment to an expert's authorized 2007 hourly rate.

¹³ Commission Resolution ALJ-235 did not allow a COLA to be added to an expert's 2008 rate for 2009 rates.

¹⁴ In order to increase the hourly rates approved in the future, SFCP must provide a justification for the requested increase.

¹⁵ See, e.g., D.06-09-011, 200 Cal.PUC LEXIS 315, *33; D.99-11-006, 1999 Cal.PUC LEXIS 657, *30.

¹⁶ This is after the 75% reduction for all hours billed by SFCP.