5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable. Below we review the reasonableness of GPI's request.

GPI requests compensation in the amount of $59,361 for its participation in this proceeding as follows:

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. While occasionally helpful, GPI's documentation is often inaccurate and/or inadequate. As a result GPI's request for compensation is not on par with the contribution to the proceeding that GPI actually made. For example, where Morris seeks compensation for time meeting with a research associate, the associate's time report does not reflect that this meeting took place. Similarly, while Morris and attorney Welner both show that they met to confer, they report that this meeting took place on markedly different dates. Nor does GPI in any way explain how or why it claims postage costs and courier fees related to mailing its opening and reply briefs which were filed and served electronically. These deficiencies are, in a relative sense, minor. While we disallow the aforementioned postage costs, the hours claimed by GPI for substantive work are clearly reasonable.

Rather than any bad motive, it appears that these shortcomings are the result of inadequate work on the compensation request by GPI. That we do not equate the difficulty of preparing compensation requests with other aspects of the intervenor's participation should not be seen as either minimizing the importance of the compensation request or opening the door to pro-forma or perfunctory claims. While we are reluctant to reduce the already limited number of hours GPI spent on its compensation request, we are compelled to do so given the deficiencies in the research GPI should have done in support of its request. Because GPI's compensation request proved neither wholly accurate nor adequately detailed, we reduce the hours allowed for work on the compensation request by half to 8.0 from 16.0. Moreover, we admonish GPI that an intervenor seeking compensation bears the burden of making a clear, well substantiated showing that it has made a significant contribution. Cobbling claimed contentions to statements in decisions without accurate references to the decisions and the claimant's work in the proceeding falls short of meeting this burden.

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. GPI seeks hourly rates for its attorneys and experts as follows:

Morris: GPI seeks $220 and $230 for work done by policy expert Morris in 2006 and 2007, respectively. GPI argues that the $230 rate represents the next logical increase over the $220 approved for G. Morris in D.06-08-013. However, subsequent to GPI's request for compensation in this proceeding, in D.08-09-036, the Commission awarded GPI compensation for work done by G. Morris in 2007 in the amount of $225 per hour. As stated therein:

For the work performed in 2007, GPI requests a rate of $230, and explains that this rate reflects a 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) (rounded to the nearest $5.00), consistent with the guidelines set forth in D.07-01-009. However, with the 3% COLA and rounded to the nearest $5.00, the rate should be $225.00.

We again approve this rate for Morris.

Welner: GPI includes a bill from the Paul Hastings law firm that includes work done by Welner at a rate of $570 per hour. GPI makes no attempt to justify this rate and fails to acknowledge that in D.05-01-053, the Commission set a rate of $285 per hour for work by Welner in 2004. We escalate $285, the rate established for Welner in D.05-01-053 for 2004 by 0% for 2005,⁷ and by 3% for 2006 and another 3% for 2007 (see D.07-01-009), each time rounding the sum to the nearest $5.00. The result is $305 and we approve this rate for Welner's 2007 work. We caution GPI that by failing to recognize and report the hourly rates the Commission has set in the past it risks sanction, particularly where the rates sought are higher than the rates the Commission previously found to be reasonable.

Sharpless: The bill from the Paul Hastings law firm that GPI attached also includes work done by Sharpless at a rate of $265 per hour. Again, GPI makes no attempt to justify this rate and provides no information about Sharpless other than the hours and rates charged for his services. In particular, GPI fails to acknowledge that in D.06-10-012 the Commission set a rate of $110 per hour for work by Sharpless in 2005. Following the same formula used for Welner, we escalate $110, the rate established for Sharpless in D.06-10-012 for 2005 by 3% for 2006, and another 3% for 2007 (see D.07-01-009), then round the sum to the nearest $5.00. The result is $120 and we approve this rate for Sharpless' 2007 work. Again, we caution GPI that by failing to recognize and report the hourly rates the Commission has set in the past it risks sanction, particularly where the rates sought are higher than the rates the Commission previously found to be reasonable.

V. Morris: D.06-10-012 adopted the rate of $30 per hour requested by GPI for work performed by V. Morris in 2005. In D.07-12-007 we approved a 3% increase for work done by V. Morris in 2006, resulting in an award of $31 per hour. GPI now request a rate of $32 per hour. GPI's request is consistent with D.07-01-009. We therefore approve a rate of $32 per hour for V. Morris.

Harrold: D.06-10-012 adopted the rate of $30 per hour requested by GPI for work performed by Harrold in 2005. In D.07-12-007 we a approved a 3% increase for work done by Harrold in 2006, resulting in an award of $31 per hour. GPI now request a rate of $32 per hour. GPI's request is consistent with
D.07-01-009. We therefore approve a rate of $32 per hour for Harrold.

5.3. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by GPI include the following:

The itemized direct expenses submitted by GPI include costs for photocopying, postage, courier services, and Federal Express services. For the most part, the cost breakdown GPI included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. Other than $34.18 inexplicably spent on postage and courier services for documents that were filed electronically, we find these expenses (totaling approximately $73.00) reasonable.

⁷ In D.05-11-031, we adopted guidelines and principles for setting intervenors' hourly rates for work performed in 2005. Except under specific conditions, D.05-11-031 generally does not authorize rate increase above previously approved 2004 rates.