Reasonableness of Requested Compensation
As described above, UCS made a substantial contribution to this proceeding. We now determine whether UCS' compensation request of $124,943.30 is reasonable. UCS itemized its request with the necessary specificity as required by the intervenor statute and 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 their participation. This showing assists us in determining the overall reasonableness of the request.
UCS 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. Given the scope of UCS' participation and the work products prepared, the number of claimed hours is reasonable. Since we find that UCS' efforts made a substantial contribution to the decision, we need not exclude from UCS' award any compensation for specific issues.
Although we adopted many of UCS' recommendations, it is difficult to attribute specific quantifiable benefits to UCS' participation. Over the 10-year life of the LTPPs for the three IOUs, however, net financial savings in many areas recommended by UCS will likely exceed the intervenor compensation claim. For example, the arguments in support of the RPS target goals being a "floor" and not a "ceiling" and the work presented on future carbon emission costs and utilizing a GHG adder when comparing fossil fuel bids against renewable ones may prove to be a prudent course of action both from a financial and an environmental perspective. Considering these issues, we find UCS' efforts have been productive.
In addition, we believe that UCS made every effort to avoid duplication of effort with other parties, especially NRDC and CEERT - both organizations that promote similar goals. To the extent UCS took the same position on an issue as another party, we find that UCS' showing supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the showing of the other party.
Finally, in determining compensation, we take into consideration the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons. In this proceeding, UCS used two attorneys, a senior policy analyst and two junior policy analysts, and an administrator from Grueneich Resource Advocates (GRA); the Energy Program Director from UCS; and five professionals from Synapse Energy Economics. As set forth below, and for the reasons UCS advocates, we find that the requested hourly rates are reasonable.
UCS Staff
UCS requests an hourly rate of $232/hour for Alan Nogee, UCS' Energy Program Director based on a previously approved rate by the Commission of $215 for 2003,40 escalated by 8%.41
Synapse Energy Economics
UCS requests a rate of $150/hour for Amy Rochelle, a Business Consultant with Synapse Energy Economics (SEE). Although the Commission has not yet authorized this rate for Rochelle, UCS posits that the rate is reasonable considering her education and professional experience. Rochelle has over ten years professional experience with a background in both business and engineering, and holds a BS and MS in materials science and engineering from MIT and UCLA, respectively, and an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management. UCS claims that this rate is in line with other awards the Commission has made, citing Sheryl Carter and Eric Woychik.
UCS requests a rate of $180/hour for work performed by Bruce Biewald for 2004. The Commission approved an hourly rate of $150 for Biewald for 2003 in D.03-10-085. UCS argues that his rate should be increased to $180 for 2004 as that rate is consistent with rates approved by the Commission for 2004 for other witnesses with similar education and experience.42 We find the $180 rate reasonable. Biewald holds a BS in architecture from MIT, is the President of Synapse Energy Economic, has experience in the field of production and consumption of energy and has testified in more than seventy cases in utility regulatory proceedings.
UCS requests a rate of $162/hour for Tim Woolf for work done in 2004, which is consistent with a Commission approved rate43 of $150 for 2003 for Woolf, escalated by 8%.
UCS requests a rate of $150/hour for Geoff Keith. UCS argues that this rate is reasonable as it is the same rate the Commission approved for Rochelle, and Keith has similar experience to Rochelle. Keith has a BA from Tufts University and a Masters in Environmental Studies from Brown University and he has over seven years experience in the field of changing market structures and environmental policy initiatives.
UCS requests a rate of $115/hour for Anna Sommer for 2004. Sommer holds a B.S. in Economics and Environmental Studies from Tufts University and has four years experience in the energy industry. UCS argues that this rate is reasonable as the Commission approved a rate of $105/hour in D.03-10-085 for 2003 for Cliff Chen and Alex Moffett of SEE, both of whom have less experience than Sommer. $105 escalated by 8% is $113, so $115 is within the acceptable range.
40 D.03-10-085.
41 In Resolution ALJ-184 the Commission established that a Commission approved rate may be escalated by 8% per year for work performed in 2004.
42 The Commission approved an hourly rate of $185 for 2004 for William Marcus, a witness with similar experience, in D. 03-10-011 and D. 04-04-003.
43 D.03-10-085.
