5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

We next assess whether the amount of the compensation requested is reasonable. Reid requests $112,432.48 as follows:

Unlike many intervenors, Reid does not request compensation for time spent preparing his NOI and request for compensation.

5.1. Claimed Hours

To determine whether the requested compensation is reasonable, we first assess whether the hours claimed are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution.

Reid documented his 607.5 of claimed hours by presenting a daily listing of the hours he spent on this proceeding, accompanied by a brief description of each task performed and the specific issue (identified by Reid) the task addresses.²³ Reid's breakdown of claimed hours by issue is as follows:

We assume that the 607.5 hours claimed by Reid represents all of the time he spent on this proceeding, with the exception of time spent preparing his NOI and request for intervenor compensation. As mentioned previously, Reid does not request compensation for the time he spent preparing his NOI and request for compensation.

Although we find that Reid made several substantial contributions to this proceeding, these contributions constituted only a small part of Reid's participation. The great majority of Reid's participation was devoted to advancing his recommendations listed below²⁵:

1. The Commission should reject PG&E's application in its entirety.

2. The Commission should reprimand PG&E for its alleged anti-competitive behavior.

3. The Commission should require PG&E to obtain requests for offers (RFO) when purchasing pipeline capacity for a term of more than three years or a quantity of more than 100 million cubic feet per day.

4. The Commission should order PG&E to retain an Independent Evaluator to ensure that the above mentioned RFO is fair.

5. The Commission should prohibit PG&E from employing anyone who is also employed by PG&E Corp.

6. The Commission should prohibit PG&E from having a member of its Utility Risk Management Committee (URMC) who is also a member of PG&E Corp.'s Risk Management Committee.

7. The Commission should prohibit PG&E from having a member of its URMC who is employed by PG&E Corp.

8. The Commission should require PG&E to file a compliance advice letter informing the Commission it has have complied with the above requirements.

9. If the Commission approves PG&E's application, the Commission should require El Paso to file an annual compliance report with that explains whether El Paso has complied with U.S. DOT pipeline regulations and explain any relevant findings by the DOT related to DOT regulations.

10. If the Commission approves PG&E's application, the Commission should require PG&E to submit FTSAs for Commission approval.

D.08-11-032 adopted only one of Reid's recommendations listed above (i.e., Recommendation 10) and rejected the rest. We conclude that Reid did not make a substantial contribution with respect to those recommendations that were rejected by D.08-11-032. We recognize, however, that a small portion of the time that Reid spent on his recommendations was necessary for his substantial contributions in other areas. For example, Reid recommended that the Commission require El Paso to file reports about its compliance with DOT regulations. While D.08-11-032 rejected the recommendation, the recommendation led to D.08-11-032 ordering PG&E to provide prompt responses to Commission requests for information about outages on the Ruby Pipeline.

Reid did not itemize his time in a way that allows us to readily determine what portion of his 607.5 of claimed hours is related to his substantial contributions. In order to make this determination, we have reviewed Reid's prepared written testimony, his many hours of cross examination, and his briefs. Based on our review, we conclude that 80% of Reid's claimed hours are unrelated to his substantial contributions. The following table shows our calculation of the portion of the hours claimed by Reid that are reasonably related to, and necessary for, his substantial contributions to D.08-11-032:

5.2. Hourly Rates

We next consider if Reid's claimed fees are comparable to the market rates paid to experts with comparable training and experience and offering similar services. Reid requests hourly rates of $185 for work performed in 2008 and $170 for work performed in 2007. We previously approved Reid's requested hourly rates in D.08-11-054 and D.07-05-037. We adopt those rates here.

5.3. Direct Expenses

Reid's request for direct expenses is limited to $77.98 for computer rental. We decline to grant the request. An intervenor's professional fees are set to recover overhead and administrative costs.²⁶ Costs for computer equipment are an overhead expense and, therefore, are recovered through Reid's hourly rate.

5.4. Productivity

The costs of a customer's participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through their participation. To achieve this goal, D.98-04-059 directed customers to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers.²⁷

As set forth below, today's decision awards $22,471.50 to Reid for his substantial contributions to D.08-11-032. However, the benefits of Reid's substantial contributions are intangible in nature and, therefore, the monetary benefits cannot be readily quantified. While we cannot quantify the benefits of Reid's substantial contributions, we believe it is likely that the future benefits to ratepayers will exceed the amount awarded to Reid by today's decision.

²³ Reid's claimed hours include 1.1 hours in May and June 2009. We assume that Reid meant to label these hours as having been expended in May and June 2008.

²⁴ Other Issues includes responding to motions filed by other parties.

²⁵ Reid Opening Brief, p. iv; and Reid Reply Brief, p. iii.

²⁶ See, e.g., D.08-07-019, p. 16; and D.07-04-010, p. 12.

²⁷ D.98-04-059, pp. 34-35.