5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation
After we have determined the scope of customers' substantial contributions, we then look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.
Aglet requests $22,479.26 for its contributions to D.06-07-029, as follows:
Item |
Hours |
Rate |
Total |
James Weil professional time |
10.2 |
$262.00 |
$ 2,672.40 |
James Weil work on compensation request |
6.2 |
$131.00 |
$ 812.20 |
Jan Reid professional time |
85.3 |
$200.00 |
$17,060.00 |
Jan Reid travel |
4 |
$100.00 |
$ 400.00 |
Jan Reid work on compensation request |
13.1 |
$100.00 |
$ 1,310.00 |
Other Reasonable Costs: |
|||
Photocopying |
$ 64.08 | ||
Postage |
$ 76.70 | ||
Parking/mileage |
$ 83.88 | ||
Total |
$22,479.26 | ||
WEM requests $18,712.76 for its contributions to D.06-07-029, as follows:
Name |
Hours6 |
Rate |
Total |
Barbara George |
93.25 |
$170.00 |
$ 15,852.50 |
Barbara George work on intervenor compensation matters |
30.00 |
$ 85.00 |
$ 2,550.00 |
Barbara George travel |
2.00 |
$ 85.00 |
$ 170.00 |
Photocopies and delivery |
$ 140.26 | ||
Total: |
$18,712.76 |
In general, the components of each of these requests 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.
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 substantial contribution.
5.1. Reasonableness of Aglet's Request for Compensation
5.1.1. Aglet's Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary for
Substantial Contribution
Aglet documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. Aglet also provided allocation of its professional time by major issue. The hourly breakdown and the allocation of time by issues reasonably support Aglet's claim. Except for travel time, we approve all hours claimed by Aglet.
Aglet's request includes 4 hours of Jan Reid's time to travel to the PHC in San Francisco. We have held that it is unreasonable to compensate an intervenor for routine commuting to San Francisco7 and disallow the travel time.
5.1.2. Aglet's Hourly Rate
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. In our previous decision,
we already adopted Aglet's hourly rates for the year 2006, as follows:
Rate |
Year |
Decision | |
James Weil |
$260 |
2006 |
D.06-10-018 |
Jan Reid |
$155 |
2006 |
D.06-04-022 |
We adopt the same rates here.
5.1.3. Aglet's Direct Expenses
The itemized direct expenses submitted by Aglet include costs of travel (including parking), photocopying, postage, and total $224.66. The cost breakdown provided in Aglet's request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. Except for the expenses related to travel, we find Aglet's direct expenses reasonable. Travel related expenses are disallowed.
5.2. Reasonableness of WEM's Request for Compensation
5.2.1. WEM's Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary for
Substantial Contribution
WEM's request consists of fees of its executive director, Barbara George, and general expenses. During the period of time from March to July of 2006, WEM filed four documents: Policy Proposal for Integrated Long-Term Procurement, March 2, 2006; Comments on LTPP - March Workshop, April 7, 2006; Reply Comments on March Workshop, April 19, 2006; and Reply Comments on Draft Decision, July 17, 2006, and participated in the March 14, 2006 workshop on new generation policy. In this proceeding, WEM's substantial contribution consisted of reminding the Commission to focus on energy efficiency rather than on building new fossil-fueled generation. WEM has been a party to all energy efficiency proceedings of the Commission since 20018 and states it is an expert in the field;9 however, this is not solely an energy efficiency matter. WEM spent 93.25 hours on the energy efficiency issue which was not the primary focus of this proceeding. Because its substantial contribution was not the primary focus of Phase 1 of the proceeding, the number of hours WEM claims (93.25 hours) was excessive in light of the scope of its substantial contribution.
When WEM filed its NOI on March 30, 2006, it had already spent
44.25 hours on the Policy Proposal and the March 14, 2006 workshop. The NOI estimated a total of 50 hours of work towards the Phase I decision.10 We find that 65 hours, a moderately higher number than estimated, more accurately reflects WEM's substantial contribution to D.06-07-029.
WEM spent 30 hours on intervenor compensation matters. We find that devoting 30 hours to preparing a request for 93 hours of professional time is unproductive and excessive. We authorize 19.5 hours for preparation of the request. In the future, we encourage WEM to use our on-line standardized forms when filing for intervenor compensation, which should shorten the time spent on these matters.
WEM also claims two hours of its representative's time spent travelling to and from a workshop held in San Francisco. As we explained in the case of Aglet, we do not compensate an intervenor for routine commuting to
San Francisco. We disallow this time.
5.2.2. WEM Hourly Rates
WEM seeks an hourly rate of $170.00 for George's work performed in 2006. We previously approved this rate in D.08-01-017 and adopt this rate here.
5.2.3. WEM's Direct Expenses
WEM requests the amount of $140.26 for photocopies and delivery; however, it provides no itemization of this amount, in violation of the provisions of Rule 17.4(c). Since the amount is not large, we allow compensation. In the future, however, WEM must itemize its expenses or we will not authorize compensation for these expenses.
6 In WEM's request, there are discrepancies between this data in the table and information in the timesheet. Here we correct the discrepancies by bringing the number of hours in this table in accord with hours indicated in the timesheet. The total requested dollar amount has not been affected by this correction.
7 See, for example, D.07-04-010, p. 12.
8 See WEM's Policy Proposal for Integrated Long-Term Procurement filed March 2, 2006, p. 3.
9 WEM's Request, p. 5.
10 NOI, pp. 3-4.
