8. CE Council's Requested Compensation

CE Council requests $74,269.80¹³ for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

In general, the components of this request must constitute reasonable fees and costs of the customer's preparation for and participation in a proceeding that resulted in a substantial contribution. We consider whether the hours claimed are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution.

8.1. Attorney Rates

We consider here whether the claimed fees and costs are comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

In requesting this rate, CEC relies on attorney Tamlyn Hunt's experience (six years, including 2.5 years of practicing before the Commission) and on D.07-01-009 establishing for attorneys with five to seven years of experience a rate range of $270-$290 per hour for work performed in 2007. However, for 2007, that decision only allows two kinds of increases of the previous year rates: 3% cost of living adjustment and 5% step increase. Application of these two factors to his 2006 rate does not bring Hunt's 2007 rate within the rate range mentioned above.

In D.05-11-031, setting 2005 rates for intervenors' representatives, we stated:

Where additional experience since the last authorized rate would move a representative to a higher level of qualification (e.g., from intermediate to senior), an increase is reasonable to bring the representative's hourly rate within the range of the representative's peers at the higher level.

Although this provision was set forth for the year 2005 rates and although Hunt in 2007 remained at the same level experience level (5 to 7 years) as he did in 2006, we consider here CEC's request to bring his 2007 hourly rate in line with rates as we set in D.07-01-009. We base our consideration on the fact that it would not be fair to deny Hunt bringing his rate in accord with the rates set for attorneys with his level of experience, while at the same time for an attorney for the first time appearing before the Commission in 2007, we would approve a requested rate if it would correspond with his experience level. Based on this consideration, we approve the rate of $270.00 for Hunt's work in 2007.

CE Council also proposes $75 for two of its staff, Megan Birney and Megan Diaz. CE Council does not identify these staff members' professional qualifications or justify their respective rates. The Commission does not compensate intervenors for the services of support staff because those costs are presumed to be covered by attorney and expert rates as overhead costs. We therefore do not compensate the hours of Diaz or Birney. Future requests for compensation should provide more specific information and justification for work that would be compensated.

8.2. Hours Claimed

We have already stated our intent to disallow work leading to D.07-09-043 because we find that CE Council did not make a substantial contribution to that decision. We therefore disallow 158 hours in 2006 and 6.25 hours in 2007 CE Council claims for work leading to D.07-09-043.

We find that the hours CE Council claims for Hunt's work leading to D.07-10-032 are reasonable and we herein authorize compensation for them. CE Council appropriately billed half of the hours spent on travel and on drafting the compensation request. CE Council's hours are reasonable for the work CE Council conducted in this proceeding.

D.98-04-059 directed customers to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. The costs of a customer's participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through their participation. It would be difficult to assign a value to CE Council's participation in a proceeding like this. However, the benefits to customers of CE Council's participation surely outweigh the costs.

8.3. Direct Expenses

CE Council seeks $3,628.30 in expenses for work in this proceeding, which is primarily travel from Santa Barbara, where CE Council's office is located.¹⁶ We disallow travel and other expenses for 2006, when CE Council was working exclusively on the phase of the proceeding leading to D.07-09-043, work we have found did not make a substantial contribution. For expenses regarding work on D.07-10-032, CE Council seeks $2,023.28 for four days of travel from Santa Barbara to attend a hearing and workshops in San Francisco. These costs are reasonable and we will authorize their recovery.

¹³ In CE Council's calculation of the requested amount, it is $75,098.64. However, CE Council made a few calculation errors that we correct in the table below. The correct amount, in accordance with the timesheets attached to the request and information on the travel expenses additionally provided by CE Council in its letter of January 2, 2008, is $74,269.80 and we indicate it here.

¹⁴ In CE Council's summary of the requested compensation (tables on pages 16-17 of the Request), a number of hours spent in 2007 on the issues of the proceeding is 133.75, and on travel - 11.25. However, CE Council erroneously includes in the time spent on substantive issues 3.5 hours described in the timesheets as "return to Santa Barbara" (see, timesheet for 6/8/2007), and we re-designate here these hours as "travel" at half rate. Accordingly, the amount of the time spent in 2007 on the issues of the proceeding is 130.30 hours and on travel - 14.75 hours.

¹⁵ In CE Council's summary of the requested compensation (tables on pages 16-17 of the Request), the intervenor indicates a different amount -- $3,981.14. However, in its letter of January 2, 2008, providing, at the request of the judge, a breakdown of the travel costs, CE Council indicates the amount of $3,628.30, and we include it here.

¹⁶ CE Council's travel time from Santa Barbara is reasonable because CE Council states most of the work of its organization involves representing the community in and around Santa Barbara.