Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

We now determine whether NRDC's compensation request of $219, 244.45 is reasonable. NRDC itemized its request with the necessary specificity as required by the intervenor statute and it attached to its claim supporting documentation for the requested amount. The fees and costs are summarized in the award section of this decision.

The components of this request must constitute reasonable fees and costs of the intervenor's preparation for and participation in a proceeding that resulted in a substantial contribution. Thus, only those fees and costs associated with the intervenor's work that the Commission concludes made a substantial contribution are reasonable and eligible for compensation.

Also, D.98-04-059 directed intervenors to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. The costs of an intervenor's participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized in their participation. This showing assists us in determining the overall reasonableness of the request.

NRDC documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, policy analysts and experts, along with a brief description of each activity. The hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim for total hours.⁶ Given the scope of NRDC's participation and the work products prepared,⁷ the number of claimed hours is reasonable. Since we find that virtually all of NRDC's efforts made a substantial contribution to the decision, we need not exclude from NRDC's award any compensation for specific issues.

It is difficult to quantify the benefits to NRDC's participation over the life of Mohave, or its alternatives. For example, only authorizing critical path items that will keep the "Mohave open" option alive now, rather than authorizing the entire $1.2 billion in retrofits may prove to be a prudent course of action. Advising the Commission to consider the cost of mercury emissions in the future is also prudent. In addition, exploring alternative sources of energy to be used either in lieu of, or in concert with Mohave, may prove to be economical in the long run. Considering these long-term qualitative issues, we find NRDC's efforts have been productive.

Finally, in determining compensation, we take into consideration the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons. In this proceeding, NRDC engaged an economist from Microdesign Northwest, two senior attorneys and a science director from NRDC, and a senior attorney and an attorney, two junior and one senior policy analysts, and a firm administrator from Grueneich Resource Advocates (GRA). As we discuss below, we find the hourly rates proposed by NRDC for these individuals are reasonable.