5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation
UCAN requests $24,392 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:
Work on Proceeding | |||||
Attorney/Staff |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly Rate |
Total | |
Art Neill |
2006 |
34.25 |
$160.00 |
$ 5,480.00 | |
Art Neill |
2007 |
58.4 |
$160.00 |
$ 9,344.00 | |
Art Neill |
2008 |
1.0 |
$160.00 |
$ 160.00 | |
Michael Shames |
2006 |
10.1 |
$320.00 |
$ 3,232.00 | |
Michael Shames |
2007 |
16.1 |
$320.00 |
$ 5,152.00 | |
Subtotal Hourly Compensation: |
$23,368.00 | ||||
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request5 | |||||
Attorney/Staff |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly Rate |
Total | |
Art Neill |
2008 |
5.0 |
$160.00 |
$ 800.00 | |
Michael Shames |
2006 |
.7 |
$320.00 |
$ 224.00 | |
Subtotal NOI Compensation: |
$ 1,024.00 | ||||
Total Requested Award |
$24,392.00 | ||||
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. The issues we consider to determine reasonableness are discussed below:
5.1. Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary for Substantial Contribution
We first assess whether the hours claimed for the customer's efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to Commission decisions are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution.
UCAN has documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorney, accompanied by a brief description of each activity.
Although UCAN's participation in the proceeding was important and valuable, the number of hours claimed for compensation is excessive in light of the volume and complexity of certain tasks performed by this intervenor when compared to the quantity of work the intervenor produced. As such, the Commission has reduced the amount of the award to represent our policy on reasonableness of hours.
We also note that UCAN frequently requests compensation for tasks described as clerical, such as "filing," "submitting," or "meeting scheduling," which are excluded from compensation by the Commission. In accordance with this practice, we disallow clerical tasks as listed.
5.2. Intervenor Hourly Rates
We next take into consideration 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.
UCAN seeks an hourly rate of $320 for Michael Shames for his work in this proceeding. We previously approved the requested rate of $310 for his work in 2006 (D.07-02-029 and D.07-09-015) and 2007 (D.08-02-034). Since UCAN now requests a higher rate of $320 for the year 2007, to reflect the 3% cost-of-living adjustment as approved in D.07-01-00, we adjust his previously adopted 2007 rate of $310 to $320, accordingly. We approve here the rate of $310 for Shames' work in 2006, and the rate of $320 for his work in 2007.
Neill is new to the Commission. UCAN requests an hourly rate of $155 for his 2006-2008 work on this proceeding (Request, pp. 6 and 7), but bases its calculations on the rate of $160 (Attachment A to the Request).6 According to UCAN, Neill was licensed to practice law in California in 2006 and has worked on public utility related issues. The rate of $155 is within the rate range for attorneys with Neill's experience. In accordance with UCAN's request, we adopt the rate of $155 for Neill's work in 2007, and we use this rate for his work in 2006. The rate of $160 is adopted here for his work in 2008, to reflect a 3% cost-of-living adjustment applied to his 2007 rate, as requested by UCAN.
5.3. Direct Expenses
UCAN waives reimbursement for travel, telephone or copying costs as these fees were minimal.
5 In the Request, instead of indicating that attorney's rate for work on intervenor compensation matters are reduced by half, UCAN reduces by half its time spent on these matters. In our award, we use the correct amount of time spent on intervenor compensation matters and adjust the requested hourly rate by half, to reflect the correct itemization. We also note that UCAN incorrectly records .5 hours that Neill spent on its NOI as time spent on substantive issues of the proceeding, and bills at the full hourly rate. Our award re-calculates this time at half-rate. To avoid future reductions, award requests must show the proper appropriation.
6 We note that a few months after UCAN filed its claim for compensation in this proceeding, UCAN requested compensation in A.06-12-009, et al. In this claim, UCAN also requested the rate of $155 for Neill's work in 2007 (see page 19 of UCAN's request of September 4, 2008, filed in A.06-12-009/A.06-12-010/I.07-02-013, and Art Neill's timesheet attached to that request).
