4. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

Per its revised claim, Greenlining/LIF requests $95,203.91 as follows:

Total = $95,203.91

In D.98-04-059, the Commission adopted a requirement that a customer must demonstrate that its participation was "productive," as that term is used in Section 1801.3, where the Legislature gave the Commission guidance on program administration. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo., at 31-33, and Finding of Fact 42.) In that decision, we discuss the requirement that participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. Customers are directed to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. This exercise assists us in determining the reasonableness of the request and in avoiding unproductive participation.

We have considered the contributions of Greenlining/LIF through its written proposals, comments, and workshop participation in these proceedings to achieve benefits for low-income electric and gas customers. In D.01-05-033 we adopted many of Greenlining/LIF's proposals regarding leveraging of LIEE dollars, use of weatherization fees and payment of capitation fees to community-based organizations. No party provided estimates of the value to low-income customers of the leveraging effects of LIEE dollars with LIHEAP dollars. However, SBX1 5 and ABX1 29 provided an additional $140 million to DCSD to supplement LIHEAP activities. Given the substantial dollars involved, even a small improvement in effectiveness achieved by leveraging LIEE dollars with LIHEAP dollars is significant relative to the costs of Greenlining/LIF's participation in these proceedings.

Similarly, in D.01-06-010 we adopted some of Greenlining/LIFs proposals that have significant dollar effects on low-income customers. We adopted an increase in the CARE discount from 15% to 20% resulting in a benefit to low-income customers exceeding $40 million. In addition, we liberalized the CARE eligibility criteria for gas and electric customers from 150% to 175% of the federal poverty level as recommended by Greenlining/LIF. This increase provides a benefit to low-income gas customers estimated at about $900,000 for SDG&E customers and $11million for SoCalGas customers.8 Additional substantial benefits will accrue to low-income customers of PG&E and Edison. In short, Greenlining/LIF's participation in these two decisions was productive.

Greenlining/LIF documented its claimed hours through daily records of the time spent by attorneys, consultants, and other staff, as provided in its July 5 compensation request and amended by its September 25 errata. The records indicate both the professional and support hours and the activities associated with the hours. The hourly breakdowns and allocation of hours reasonably support the claimed hours. Greenlining/LIF also properly calculated the time for preparation of its compensation request at one-half of actual hours.

In D.02-05-011 we thoroughly reviewed hourly rates for Greenlining/LIF's attorneys and certain staff, and ordered revisions to several decisions awarding compensation to Greenlining/LIF. Consistent with the rates subsequently adopted in D.02-07-030, we will use $275 per hour for Brown for 2001 and $255 per hour for Witteman for 2000. For work in 2001, we will award compensation for Witteman at the rate requested of $265 per hour.

Gonzales holds an MBA from Harvard University (1972), held management positions at Pacific Bell between 1974 and 1982, and served in various high level/executive positions in government and non-profit organizations since 1986. Gonzales has served on the Boards of several for-profit and non-profit organizations. Gonzales provides consulting services at a rate of $180/hour but her declaration does not describe what types of services are provided at that hourly rate, or what year she charged that rate to clients. D.01-09-045 adopted a rate of $135 per hour for Gonzales for 1999 and 2000. After review of Gonzales' declaration, which includes information we did not previously have, we will increase that rate by $25 per hour for 2001 to recognize her training and experience, as well as inflation, to $160 per hour for 2001.

In D.02-05-011 we adopted a rate of $135 per hour for Gamboa for work in 1998. This rate reflected his work as Executive Director of Greenlining Institute, providing policy direction and analysis. In these proceedings the recorded hours by activity for Gamboa indicate his involvement addresses primarily similar policy and analysis work, as well as organization and recording of the task force meetings. This work parallels his work as an Executive Director in 1998. Gamboa has been Executive Director of Greenlining Institute since 1994 and prior to this position served as Executive Director of Latino Issues Forum and Project Participant. Gamboa served as a line and staff manager at Pacific Bell between 1971 and 1981. Gamboa's declaration indicates he served on various corporate boards; the boards are not identified. Gamboa has been a frequent participant at Commission proceedings as a witness. The declaration does not describe Gamboa's educational background. Gamboa and Gonzales provided similar services in this case and have similar work experiences. Therefore we will compensate Gamboa in 2001 at $160 /hour, the same rate we have awarded to Gonzales.

There is no record that Greenlining/LIF's interns Flores and Hartigan have been previously compensated by this Commission. In the September 25 errata,9 Greenlining/LIF states that Flores and Hartigan are 2000 college graduates with degrees in political science. The time and activity records submitted by Greenlining/LIF show that both interns assisted with the task force meetings, workshops and preparation of various materials for Greenlining/LIF's attorneys and consultants. Our review of this work shows that the work of these interns is not as complex as the work performed by Greenlining/LIF's senior analyst, Jose Hernandez, that was compensated at a rate of $75 per hour in D.02-05-011 for 2000. Therefore, we will adopt a rate of $70 per hour for both Flores and Hartigan for 2001.

A more significant difference between the award and Greenlining/LIF's request is due to our rejection of an hourly multiplier. Greenlining/LIF requests hourly rates for its attorneys multiplied by a factor of 1.25. An hourly rate multiplier is not requested for its consultants or interns. In its September 25 errata Greenlining/LIF argues that this additional compensation is justified due to work on the motion regarding low-income issues and the substantial benefit incurred for low-income customers. We agree with Greenlining/LIF that these were important issues, and some of these issues were resolved consistent with positions advocated by Greenlining/LIF in D.01-05-033 and D.01-06-010. However, our standards for applying hourly multipliers to attorney fees are necessarily high. If we did not set and maintain high standards, many attorney fees in compensation requests would include such multipliers, and we would no longer be adopting attorney fees based on market rates for comparable training and experience as required by Section 1804.

As we stated in D.98-04-059, we have included hourly rate multipliers when a customer's participation involved skills or duties beyond those normally required, such as when an attorney develops and sponsors technical testimony, in addition to his/her work as an attorney. As we stated in D.88-02-056 and reiterated in D.00-10-007, an upward adjustment in base level of compensation depends on many factors. Factors that can be considered in making this determination are:

A. Fee Level

B. Compensable Hours

As we further stated, "of course, these factors are not to be applied in a rigid manner. Some factors will apply to particular elements at times and at other times the factors will be considered in adjusting the overall award. These final adjustments can logically take the form of flat dollar amounts, percentage increases/decreases to either the base award or number of hours, and finally the hourly fee can be enhanced or reduced." (D.00-10-007, p. 13.)

Weighing these factors, we find that the issues in this proceeding were not of such novelty or complexity as to justify application of a multiplier. Greenlining/LIF's participation was successful, but we recognize that success by awarding compensation for all of the almost 400 hours claimed, without any reduction for issues on which Greenlining/LIF did not prevail.

Greenlining/LIF requests $4,580.97 in other costs (postage, photocopying and task force meetings). Our review of the submitted expenses in relationship to the size of the service list (150), the amount of work performed by Greenlining/LIF attorneys and staff, and its choice not to seek any reimbursement for other related costs, leads us to conclude that these other requested costs are reasonable.

8 D.01-06-010, p. 11. 9 Exhibit A, Declaration of John Gamboa.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page