6. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

The customers' claims are described and evaluated below. Later, we re-tabulate the results to show each award. Any adjustments, arithmetic errors or other errors made in the submittals are retained here, but corrected in our subsequent calculations.

CFC's Claim

Attorney	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2006	53.4	$350.00	$18,690.00
Alexis Wodtke	2007	71.8	$378.00	$27,140.40
Subtotal:		125.2		$45,830.40
Alexis Wodtke (Comp Request)	2007	19.5	$189.00	$3,685.50
Direct Costs (printing & postage)				$49.46
TOTAL CLAIM				$49,565.36

Greenlining's Claim

Attorneys and Advocates	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Thalia Gonzalez	2007	59.75	$230	$13,742.50
Stephanie Chen	2007	11.25	$180	$ 2,025.00
Bobak Roshan	2007	11.75	$180	$ 2,115.00
Mark Rutledge	2007	19.00	$150	$ 2,850.00
Subtotal:		101.75		$20,732.50
Direct Costs (postage)				$2.87
TOTAL CLAIM				$20,735.37

LIF's Claim

Attorney	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Enrique Gallardo	2007	92.25	$300.00	$27,675.0029
Direct Costs (LIF waives costs for copying, postage and supplies)				$0.00
TOTAL CLAIM				$27,675.00

In general, the components of a 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. Reasonableness of Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary for Substantial Contribution

We first assess whether the hours claimed for the customers' efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to Commission decisions are reasonable by determining to what degree their hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for their substantial contributions.

All three intervenors submitted time logs to support the hours claimed by their professionals. Those logs typically note the dates, the number of hours charged, and the issues and/or activities in which each was engaged. Each customer has adequately detailed the hours for which it is claiming compensation. As adjusted below, we find the hours and costs reasonable.

6.1.1. CFC

The information submitted with CFC's September 26, 2007 request for an award of compensation did not identify the issue(s) that the listed task addressed, as required by Rule 17.4(b). CFC submitted an amended request for an award of compensation on October 10, 2007, in response to the ALJ's October 2, 2007 ruling directing CFC to amend its compensation request to comply with Rule 17.4(b), and to make other revisions to clarify the request and correct errors.

In addition to its request for an award of compensation for its substantial contribution to the Phase 1 Decision for the period after January 11, 2007 when the OIR was opened, CFC claims $12,600 in compensation for 53.4 hours spent on activities occurring in 2006 before the start of the OIR. As discussed above, we determined that CFC's work prior to the commencement of the OIR made a substantial contribution to the Phase 1 Decision and is eligible for compensation.

The daily listing of attorney hours and associated activities in CFC's amended request for compensation shows that CFC's efforts were related and necessary for the tasks it undertook. We find the hours and costs reasonable.

6.1.2. Greenlining

The information submitted with Greenlining's August 17, 2007 request for an award of compensation did not comply with Rules 17.4(a) and 17.4(b). Greenlining submitted an amended request for an award of compensation on September 27, 2007, in response to the ALJ's September 11, 2007 ruling directing Greenlining to amend its compensation request to comply with the Rules. Greenlining submitted a second amended request for an award of compensation on October 17, 2007, in response to the ALJ's October 2, 2007 ruling ordering Greenlining to further amend its compensation request to correct errors and to further clarify the request.

Greenlining's amended request documents claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorney, legal associates, and paralegal, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. In general, the hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim for total hours. Except as discussed below, the daily listing of attorney hours and associated activities in Greenlining's amended request for compensation shows that Greenlining's efforts were related and necessary for the tasks it undertook. As adjusted, we find the hours and costs reasonable.

We make the following adjustments to the hours provided by Greenlining. First, attorney Gonzalez did not separate time spent on intervenor compensation matters from the time spent on issues in the proceeding, and claims the attorney's full hourly rate for 1.75 hours to draft Greenlining's NOI. Work on intervenor compensation matters is compensated at half the professional rate, and we have separated those hours for the appropriate rate discounting.

We disallow 2.60 hours of Thalia Gonzalez. Greenlining's second amendment removed an issue listed in the first amendment from 18 entries. However, Greenlining did not adjust the time reported for these entries. Greenlining does not explain why the issue for which time was claimed in the first amendment was removed from the second amendment or why the hours claimed in the second amendment did not change when the issue was removed from the time records. It appears that Greenlining may have arbitrarily assigned issues to its reported time. Greenlining must keep accurate records that identify the hours worked, the person performing the task, the specific task performed, and the issue the task addresses as required by Rule 17.4(b). We will reduce Greenlining's claim by 10% for each of the 18 entries that revised the issues worked on but did not revise the hours reported.

Finally, Greenlining claims 0.5 hours on July 15, 2007 for Chen to draft and file reply comments. However, because Greenlining's reply comments were filed four days earlier, on July 11, 2007, we disallow 0.5 hour for this work.

6.1.3. LIF

LIF fails to separate its hours of work on intervenor compensation matters (NOI and the subject request for compensation) from the hours spent on substantive issues, and miscalculates its hours. In our award, we correct these deficiencies. The corrected summary of LIF's costs shows that LIF devoted 85.75 hours to the issues of the proceeding and 13.25 hours (at half the professional hourly rate) to the intervenor compensation matters. In the light of LIF's substantial contribution to D.07-07-043, we find the number of LIF's hours devoted to issues of this proceeding reasonable. LIF's time spent on intervenor compensation documents is also adequate.

6.2. Market Rate Standard

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.

We previously approved hourly rates for some of the intervenors' representatives who contributed in this proceeding, and we adopt those rates here. Other representatives are requesting approval of rates for the first time, or increases in previously approved rates. D.07-01-009 set forth rate ranges and guidelines for determining hourly rates for 2006 and 2007 for attorneys and experts based on levels of applicable experience.

6.2.1. CFC's Hourly Rates

CFC requests the rate of $350 for attorney Wodtke's work in 2007. D.07-12-007 adopted a rate of $300 for Wodtke, stating:

Since CFC seeks one hourly rate for Wodtke's work in this proceeding and this decision compensates a relatively small amount of her time spent in 2007, we find it appropriate to adopt one rate for CFC's work in 2006 and 2007. Should Wodtke seek in a future proceeding an increase in the 2007 rate set by today's decision, she should provide the required support for the rate increase with her request.³⁰

In establishing the rate of $300 for Wodtke, D.07-12-007 relied on D.07-07-017. D.07-07-017 compared Wodtke's regulatory experience with that of another attorney and held, as follows:

Wodtke has been practicing law nearly as long as Wheatland but her regulatory experience as a whole (about 20 years versus almost 30) and in particular her experience with utility regulation in California (about three years versus almost 30), is significantly less extensive. For these reasons it is reasonable to set her rate for work performed in 2006 lower than Wheatland's rate of $345 but above $280, which is the starting point for the range as adjusted by the 2006 [cost-of-living adjustment].³¹

In support of its claim for a rate of $350 for Wodtke's work performed in 2006 and a rate of $378 for work performed in 2007, CFC states that D.07-07-017 reduced the 2006 rate requested by CFC based on a mistaken belief that Wodtke had only 20 years experience. According to CFC, Wodtke's resume appeared to show less relevant experience than another attorney with 30 years' experience that was awarded $345 per hour because Wodtke omitted experience from 1999 to 2006 from her resume submitted in R.05-10-030.

According to CFC, Wodtke has practiced law since 1978, and has nearly 30 years' experience as a practicing attorney. CFC states that from 1999 to 2006 Wodtke represented plaintiffs in insurance bad faith actions, a civil rights discrimination case, a securities fraud arbitration, a contract dispute and other actions, and represented defendants in suits alleging securities law violations and insurance bad faith. CFC states that Wodtke's experience from 1999 to 2006 was not included on her resume submitted in R.05-10-030 because it was not considered relevant to that rulemaking on affiliate transactions.

CFC asserts that Wodtke's previously omitted civil litigation experience, however, is relevant to this proceeding because issues concerning the liability of principals and their agents, an issue in this proceeding, are largely governed by civil law. Therefore, according to CFC, it is entitled to a 3% COLA to Wodtke's 2006 rate and a 5% step adjustment for Wodtke's additional experience in Commission proceedings gained since 2005.

D.07-01-009 established a rate range of $280 - $505 for 2006, and the rate range of $290 - $520 for 2007 (reflecting a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the 2006 rates) for attorneys with 13+ years of experience.³² Beginning with work performed in 2007, D.07-01-009 also allows intervenor representatives to request annually a step increase of 5% above their adopted rates from the previous year, not to exceed the maximum rate for attorneys with comparable experience. Step increases are considered on a case-by-case basis, and allow representatives within a given level of experience to seek rates comparable to others having similar training and experience.³³

As noted above, D.07-07-017 determined that the rate of $300 was appropriate for Wodtke's work performed in 2006. Applying a 5% step increase to the 2006 rate, considering the additional relevant experience described above, results in the rate of $315 for 2006. Applying the 3% COLA and 5% step increase to the 2006 adjusted rate results in a rate of $340 (rounded to the nearest $5) for Wodtke's work performed in 2007.

We adopt the rate of $315 for Wodtke's work in 2006 and $340 for her work in 2007. These rates are within the rate range established in D.07-01-009 for attorneys with 13+ years of experience.

6.2.2. Greenlining's Hourly Rates

Greenlining states that the hourly rates established in D.07-01-009 for experienced attorneys, experts and advocates grossly understate fair market value when compared to the law firms employed by the utilities.

Greenlining requests the rate of $230 for the work of attorney Gonzalez in 2007. However, in D.08-05-015, the Commission adopted the rate of $195 for Gonzalez's work in 2007, based on the same information about this attorney that Greenlining provides in this proceeding, and we approve the rate of $195 here.

Greenlining requests the rate of $150 for the work of paralegal Mark Rutledge. D.07-11-013 adopted the rate of $110 for Rutledge's work in 2006-2007. Greenlining provides no support for its request to increase Rutledge's previously adopted rate by more than 35%. We apply the previously adopted rate here.

According to Greenlining, Bobak Roshan and Stephanie Chen are third year law students serving as legal associates, who, among other things, drafted comments and participated in meetings with other intervenors and DRA. Greenlining requests the rate of $180 for these individuals. D.07-01-009 allows the rate of $180 for attorneys with 0-2 years of experience. However, Roshan and Chen are not yet attorneys admitted to practice law. The work performed by Roshan and Chen is similar to that performed by Rutledge. Therefore, we will apply the same the rate of $110 as was adopted in D.07-11-013 for Rutledge.

6.2.3. LIF's Hourly Rates

LIF requests an hourly rate of $300 for attorney Gallardo's work in 2007, a 5% increase from the $285 rate approved for 2006 in D.06-11-009.

Gallardo has over 10 years' experience, over seven years experience practicing before the Commission. D.07-01-009 established a rate range of $290 - $345 for 2007 for attorneys with 8-12 years of experience. LIF's requested rate of $300 for Gallardo is within the range of rates for attorneys having similar training and experience. Therefore, we apply a 5% step increase to the $285 rate approved for 2006, and approve the requested rate of $300 for Gallardo's work in 2007.

6.3. Productivity

The costs of a customer's participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through its participation.³⁴ To assist in determining the reasonableness of the compensation requested, a claimant should demonstrate productivity by trying to assign a dollar value to the ratepayer benefits of its participation. Where it is possible to do so, this showing assists us in determining the overall reasonableness of the request.

CFC states that Consumer Group Intervenors assisted the Commission in hearing the complaints of the victims of abusive marketing practices, and that CFC helped to establish protections for LEP customers. CFC states that it and the other Consumer Group Intervenors overcame the carriers' strong opposition to establishing any in-language marketing rules.

Greenlining states that its participation benefited low-income and minority ratepayers whose voices the Commission would not have otherwise heard, and that the cost of its participation was modest. LIF states that its participation supported the consumer protections adopted by the Commission.

Although it is difficult to assign monetary benefits to consumers resulting from these intervenors' contributions, we still find that the Consumer Group Intervenors' participations was productive. The Consumer Group Intervenors focused on policies that helped establish protections for LEP telecommunications customers that provide lasting benefits to ratepayers.

6.4. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by these three intervenors include costs for photocopying, printing and postage. Each has provided detail to demonstrate that its direct expenses were commensurate with the work performed.

We find reasonable the amount CFC requests for its direct expenses consisting of printing and postage charges. The itemized direct expenses submitted by Greenlining include only small postage costs, and we find these costs reasonable. LIF waives compensation for its direct expenses consisting of copying, postage and supplies.

²⁹ The requested amount is incorrect because LIF miscalculates its hours (see, Request, at p. 9). Addition of all hours in LIF's timesheet results in 85.75 hours at full professional hourly rate and 13.25 hours at half hourly rate (work on intervenor compensation matters). Based on the timesheet information, the correct amount of the request should be $27,712.50. Our award is based on LIF's timesheets rather than its summary of the requested compensation.

³⁰ D.07-12-007, p. 15.

³¹ D.07-07-017, p. 14.

³² D.07-01-009, p. 8.

³³ D.07-01-009, pp. 5-6.

³⁴ D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d, 650.