Discussion

Procedurally, Greenlining has filed a petition for modification under Rule 16.4 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, rather than an application for rehearing under Rule 16.1. A petition for modification seeks "changes to the text of an issued decision," generally in light of changes occurring since the decision was issued, while an application for rehearing deals with a claim that a decision is "unlawful or erroneous." Greenlining acknowledges that its claim should have been filed as an application for rehearing, but it states that a shortage of staff prevented it from filing within the statutory 30-day deadline and compelled a petition for modification. We find little merit in Greenlining's claim that it lacked time to file properly. The statute is an absolute bar to an untimely application for rehearing, and Greenlining has provided no reasonable basis for treating this request as a petition to modify.

Substantively, we find that Greenlining has failed to demonstrate error in the Commission's conclusion that the type of post-decision work claimed (preparation for and participation in a meeting with Verizon to discuss implementing the decision) should be disallowed. Our earlier conclusion in D.05-08-028 (post-decision work cannot be characterized as assisting the Commission in its work) put Greenlining on notice that post-decision activity of this nature would not be compensated. The San Francisco NAACP decision is distinguishable in that it dealt with "an original prevailing party who later defends a decree against a collateral attack in a separate action." (284 F.3d at 1166.) No such collateral attack or subsequent legal proceeding occurred in this case.

The fact that we awarded TURN a greater percentage than Greenlining of the compensation sought is irrelevant since TURN did not request compensation for post-decision work.

The subject petition does not include any new or changed facts and does not justify an increase in the award of compensation. The petition is denied.