II. Background

A. SSRC's Request

The underlying proceeding for which SSRC seeks compensation related to San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E) request to construct a new electric transmission line called the Valley-Rainbow Project (Project). We denied the application in D.02-12-066, reasoning that the Project was not needed.

SSRC filed two requests for compensation related to its work opposing the Project. The Commission resolved the first request, for almost $670,000, in a separate decision. SSRC separated out time related to the applications for rehearing and petition for modification at the behest of the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and included that time in this request. This decision relates only to expenses SSRC incurred in connection with the applications for rehearing resolved in D.03-05-038 and the petition for modification resolved in D.03-06-030.

SSRC seeks $25,084.98 for its contribution to D.03-05-038 regarding SDG&E's and the Independent System Operator's (ISO) applications for rehearing. SSRC seeks $37,166.77 for its contribution to D.03-06-030 concerning SDG&E's petition for modification.

B. SDG&E's Opposition

SDG&E advocates that we substantially reduce or wholly disallow SSRC's request. First, it states that the Commission should not force SDG&E's ratepayers to pay for work SSRC performed on behalf of entities not eligible for, or needing, intervenor compensation. It explains that in dividing the work between SSRC, the City of Temecula, and the Pechanga Development Corporation, SSRC, the one entity eligible for intervenor compensation, performed virtually all of the work and had the two entities not eligible for intervenor compensation (and furthermore not needing intervenor compensation) simply review and comment on the pleadings SSRC drafted (with one exception). SDG&E claims this division of labor is an abuse of the intervenor compensation statute.

Second, SDG&E claims that the Commission should not allow SSRC double recovery of its costs by allowing it to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in private donations it received to fight the Valley-Rainbow transmission line, and also to collect intervenor compensation. SDG&E states that if the "windfall" is used to fight other battles, use of ratepayer funds for this purpose would be improper.

Third, SDG&E asks the Commission to reduce SSRC's request substantially because it reflects gross inefficiency. SDG&E notes that SSRC seeks to be compensated for approximately seven weeks of time - 274.8 hours - spent on, in essence, drafting one response to SDG&E's rehearing application, one response to SDG&E's petition for modification, comments on two short draft decisions, and associated lobbying. According to SDG&E, such a large amount of time spent in producing a small work product reflects gross inefficiencies. SDG&E notes that Pub. Util. Code § 1801 only allows parties "reasonable" advocates' fees.

Fourth, SDG&E asks the Commission to reduce the request for including time spent addressing non-compensable issues. SDG&E notes that time spent communicating with the press or lobbying non-Commission governmental officials or their staffs is not time compensable under the intervenor compensation statute. SDG&E also notes that SSRC's logs include a few entries for other proceedings, and asks us to disallow this time.