5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

UCS requests $96,626.91 for its participation in this proceeding phases leading to D.08-08-028, D.08-10-026, and D.10-03-021, as follows:

Work on Proceeding
Experts/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
John Galloway, Consultant, Environmental Business Consulting	2006	19.80	$125.00	$ 2,475.00
John Galloway, Consultant, Environmental Business Consulting	2007	9.00	$ 130	$ 1,170.00
Cliff Chen, Senior Scientist	2006	6.00	$ 115	$ 690.00
Cliff Chen, Senior Scientist	2007	105.15	$120.00	$12,618.00
Cliff Chen, Senior Scientist	2008	165.75	$130.00	$21,547.50
Cliff Chen, Senior Scientist	2009	8.50	$140.00	$ 1,190.00
Laura Wisland, Energy Analyst	2008	29.50	$125.00	$ 3,687.50
Laura Wisland, Energy Analyst	2009	4.00	$130.00	$ 520.00
Laura Wisland, Energy Analyst	2010	25.35	$135.00	$ 3,422.25
Clyde Murley, Consultant, Clyde Murley Consulting	2007	16.30	$195.00	$ 3,178.50
Clyde Murley, Consultant, Clyde Murley Consulting	2008	191.70	$210.00	$40,257.00
David Schlissel, Consultant, Synapse Energy Economics	2008	14.00	$180.00	$ 2,520.00
Subtotal:				$93,275.75
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request10
Experts/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
John Galloway	2006	6.60	$ 62.50	$ 412.50
John Galloway	2010	19.00	$ 67.50	$ 1,282.50
Laura Wisland	2010	14.50	$68.0011	$ 986.00
Subtotal:				$ 2,681.00
Expenses				$ 970.16
Total Requested Compensation				$96,926.91

For its participation in the petition for modification phase of the proceeding leading to D.11-01-025, UCS requests $12,210.75, as follows:

Work on Proceeding
Experts/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Laura Wisland, Energy Analyst	2010	85.15	$135	$11,495.25
Subtotal:				$11,495.25
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request
Experts/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Laura Wisland	2011	10.60	$68.00	$ 715.5012
Subtotal:				$ 715.50
Total Requested Compensation				$12,210.75

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 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. UCS documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, staff and consultants, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. The hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim for total hours. According to UCS, as the number of requested hours is reasonable given the scope of this proceeding and the complexity of the issues. With several exceptions, we agree.

We first eliminate non-compensable hours. It appears that a part of Galloway's time records repeats tasks that have already been included in the September 19, 2007 request for compensation, which was granted in D.08-12-017. We disallow 7.50 hours of this work in 2006¹³. Also, a few lines in Galloway's time records for this proceeding appear to be repetitive (identical date, activity, and hours) of the same timesheet entries.¹⁴ We disallow 1.8 hours to avoid compensating the same work twice. Galloway's time records also include tasks described as "case management and filing" (1.6 hours in 2006 and 1.0 hour in 2007), which resemble clerical or administrative tasks. This work is not compensable¹⁵. However, since the case management part of this task may require some professional expert skill, we disallow 50% of the hours spent on these tasks or 0.8 hour (2006 hours), and 0.50 hour (2007 hours).

Second, we make reductions of hours of work that did not contribute to a final decision. UCS assesses that approximately 45% or 38.32 hours of its time was devoted to responding to the utilities' petition for modification, and 55% or 46.83 hours - to responding to the IEPA's petition for modification.¹⁶ As we have indicated earlier, UCS's response to the IEPA's petition included issues that were rejected in D.11-01-025, and UCS's work in this area did not contribute to D.11-01-025. We assess that approximately 50% or 23.40 hours of the UCS's hours devoted to the IEPA's petition should not be compensated.

Third, we analyze reasonableness of the remaining hours. We notice that UCS's representatives sometimes duplicated each other's efforts working on the same issues and documents, and participating in the same events. We also observe that, as a rule, work performed by the UCS in this proceeding was time-consuming. To determine whether some internal duplication of effort and large number of the hours were justified, we analyzed the UCS's role in the proceeding, documents UCS produced, and the substantial contributions to the Commission's decision. We also closely reviewed the time records and compensation request. Finally, we took into account professional rates and experience of the intervenor's representatives. We find UCS contributed on the multiple complex issues, providing original, in-depth analysis and important factual research data, and that UCS's position on many issues prevailed. We also find that the requested professional hourly rates, as adjusted, are modest as weighted against the UCS's representatives' professional experience and quality of their work on the merits. Based on these findings, the request, in general, is reasonable. In a few instances, where the amount of time exceeds our standards of reasonableness and is not justified, we make some adjustments of the requested amounts. We reduce Chen's and Murley's hours of work in 2007 by 1.5 hours each, for some excessive internal duplication of efforts in discussing the prehearing conference and prehearing conference statement. We further disallow 15% or 7.30 hours of Chen's work in 2008 on three sets of comments: October 14^th reply, June 6^th post-workshop, and June 18^th post-workshop reply, to reduce excessive hours based on the document's contents. We disallow 9.80 hours (15%) of Murley's work on these three sets of comments, for the same reason. We disallow 15% or 2.30 hours of Chen's in 2008 related to the March 27^th workshop preparation, for some excessive duplication of Murley's work. We disallow 1.10 hours (25%) of Wisland's work in 2008 on the review and discussions of the opening comments on the October 29^th proposed decision, for the excessive duplication of Chen's efforts.

Fourth, we analyze the reasonableness of hours devoted to the intervenor compensation issues. As described above,we find that Galloway's time records include 6.6 hours spent in 2006 on UCS's NOI, that were already contained in the September 19, 2007 request for compensation, resolved in D.08-12-017, and we disallow these hours. We further determine that a number of the hours spent preparing UCS's requests for intervenor compensation exceeded our reasonableness standards for the tasks of this type. We have brought this issue to UCS's attention previously¹⁷. We disallow 7.60 hours (40%) of Galloway's work in 2010 on the request for compensation and 5.80 (40%) hours of Wisland's work on that document. We also disallow 3.2 (30%) hours of Wisland's work in 2011 on the compensation request. These disallowances are made in the attempt to bring hours spent on these matters within the reasonable limits. We warn UCS that the allowed hours will be reduced more in the future, to match more closely our standards of reasonableness for requests of this kind.

We strongly encourage UCS to use the Commission's standardized forms when preparing notices of intent to claim compensation and requests for intervenor compensation. The forms and instructions can be found on the Commission's web site, the Intervenor Compensation Program page, at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/IntervenorCompGuide/standardized.htm. Using the forms affords more efficient preparation of the intervenor compensation documents.

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.

We approve the requested hourly rates that have been adopted previously. We also consider new rates requested for Chen's work in 2009, Wisland's work in 2009 and 2010, and Murley's work in 2008. UCS requests us to apply step increases to these expert's previously adopted rates, as authorized in D.07-01-009 and D.08-04-010.

For Chen's work in 2009, UCS requests a 5% step increase of his rate of $130 established for his work in 2008. The request is based on Chen's more extensive experience and higher level of the responsibility he assumed at UCS. The result of the step increase, rounded to the nearest $5.00, is the rate of $135. We adjust the requested rate of $140, accordingly.

UCS requests the rates of $130 for Wisland's work in 2009 and $135 in 2010. These rates include 5% step increases applied to the previously established rates, based on the years of her experience in the energy and environmental issues areas, relevant to this proceeding. Wisland's hourly rate for her work in 2011 on the intervenor compensation claim represents one half of the rate of $135. We adopt these rates.

For Murley's work in 2008, UCS requests a 5% step increase of his rate of $195 adopted previously for his work in 2007. The request is based on the higher level of the accumulated professional experience. The result of the step increase, rounded to the nearest $5.00, is the rate of $205. We adjust the requested rate of $210, accordingly.

5.3. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by UCS include only travel costs incurred by David Schlissel travelling to the MPR Cost workshop held at the CPUC on March 27, 2008. The cost breakdown included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. For each expense, UCS provided receipts supporting the expenses. Except for the cost of meal ($18.52) that the Commission does not compensate,¹⁸ we find the requested costs reasonable.

¹⁰ Reasonable claim preparation time typically compensated at ½ of preparer's normal hourly rate.

¹¹ One half of the professional rate should be $67.50, and the requested amount - $978.78.

¹² Although the requested hourly rate for this work is $68.00, the requested amount is based on the correct hourly rate of $67.50.

¹³ Galloway's timesheet entries for 10/18, 10/24, 10/25, 10/26, 10/27, 10/31 and 11/07/06 show these tasks.

¹⁴ Galloway's timesheet entries for 8/14 and 11/7/2006 show such tasks.

15 We do not allow an additional award for administrative overhead. See, e.g., D.98-11-049, 1998 Cal. PUC LEXIS 805, *5.1.3 ("Professional fees assume overheads and are set accordingly. We therefore deny additional recovery for clerical work."). See, also, D.08-09-034, at 9-10.

¹⁶ UCS's e-mail providing this information can be found in the "Correspondence" file for this proceeding.

¹⁷ See, for example, D.08-12-017, issued in this proceeding, at 11. See, also, D.10-04-022 at 32-33.

¹⁸ See, for example, D.10-03-020 at 7.