5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

WEM requests $68,150.00 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:¹¹

Work on Proceeding
Attorney/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Barbara George	2007	224.75	$170	$38,207.50
Robert Freehling	2007	103	$225	$23,175.00
Subtotal:				$61,382.50
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request
Attorney/Staff	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Barbara George	2007	36.5	$ 85	$ 3,102.50
Robert Freehling	2007	6	$112.50	$ 675.00
Subtotal Hourly Compensation:				$ 3,777.50
Expenses (Travel/transport)	2007	14/16	85/112.50	$ 2,990.00
Total Requested Compensation				$68,150.00

In general, the components of this request must constitute the 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 a substantial contribution to the Commission's decision are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution.

In support of its request for compensation WEM provided daily listings of the specific tasks performed by George and Freehling and their daily hours in connection with the proceeding. These documents evidence WEM's having attended workshops and PHCs, written testimony, testified in hearings, cross-examined witnesses, and reviewed and drafted comments. Given the scope and depth of these activities, with the three exceptions below, the hours claimed by WEM are reasonable.

First, WEM seeks $2,990 for the travel time of George and Freehling to and from Fairfax, California where WEM is located. Though the Commission awards fees and expenses for reasonable travel time, we do not believe it is reasonable to compensate an intervenor for routine commuting to San Francisco. If an intervenor has extraordinary travel costs that are reasonable and justified, such as might be incurred to attend hearings in another area of the state or to bring in a consultant with special expertise from another part of the country, we will continue to compensate them. Here however George seeks travel compensation for commuting to San Francisco and Freehling seeks compensation for commuting from Local Power's Berkeley office to WEM's office in Fairfax. Consistent with D.07-04-010, we disallow these costs.

Second, WEM claims a total of 42.5 hours spent preparing its Request for Award of Intervenor Compensation. WEM argues that the time required to put together the compensation request reflects the unusually large number of issues on which WEM's positions prevailed, and time incorporating new language and formatting from the Commission June 11, 2007 Intervenor Compensation workshop. In contrast to WEM's 42.5 hours, Aglet Consumer Alliance (an intervenor in this same proceeding, that prevailed on an equal if not greater number of issues), required only 28.4 hours to prepare a compensation request that sought 30% more than WEM's request. Similarly, Green Power Institute (another intervenor in this same proceeding) required only 16 hours to compile a compensation request with a comparable dollar amount to WEM's. In both of the aforementioned instances, the requests were prepared using the same format. Thus we are not persuaded by WEM's argument and find the hours WEM spent preparing the request to be excessive. We therefore reduce the compensation time for George's preparation of the request from 36.5 to 15 hours.

Finally, both George and Freehling seek compensation for 4.5 hours (each) spent at a May 22, 2007 joint agency meeting in Sacramento. This joint agency meeting, though perhaps important, was not part of the proceeding now at issue. We therefore disallow the compensation claims related to these costs.

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.

WEM seeks an hourly rate of $170 for George, for work performed in 2007. We previously approved this rate for George in D.08-01-017, and adopt it here. In addition, WEM seeks an hourly rate of $225 for work done by Freehling in 2007. WEM attempts to justify this rate on claims that the requested rate represents "the average rate for `Consultant' in PG&E's Intervenor Compensation Data Sets for 2004-2006" and is "in the mid-range of rates for experts with his years of experience set by D.07-01-009." WEM fails to acknowledge that in D.06-05-037 the Commission set a rate of $120 per hour for work by Freehling in 2005. We escalate $120, the rate established for Freehling in D.06-05-037 by 3% for 2006 and another 3% for 2007 (see D.07-01-009), each time rounding the sum to the nearest $5.00. The result is $130 and we approve this rate for Freehling's 2007 work. We caution WEM that by failing to recognize and report the hourly rates the Commission has set in the past it risks sanction, particularly where the rates sought are higher than the rates the Commission previously found to be reasonable.

5.3. Direct Expenses

WEM is not requesting recovery of any direct expenses.

¹¹ WEM's request contained two mathematical errors that increased the request by $141.00 to $68,291.00.