5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

NRDC requests compensation in the amount of $40,540.72, as follows:

Name	Year	Hours	Hourly Rate	Total
Work Towards D.08-07-047
Audrey Chang, Expert	2008	20.50	$155.00	$3,177.50
Lara Ettenson, Expert	2008	47.25	$125.00	$5,906.25
Peter Miller, Expert	2008	10.50	$100.00	$1,050.00
Subtotal:		78.25		$10,133.75
Participation in PRGs/PAGs
Audrey Chang, Expert	2007	14.25	$150.00	$2,137.50
Audrey Chang, Expert	2008	21.00	$155.00	$3,255.00
Lara Ettenson, Expert	2007	25.50	$120.00	$3,060.00
Lara Ettenson, Expert	2008	137.50	$125.00	$17,187.50
Kristin Grenfell	2007	13.00	$145.00	$1,885.00
Kristin Grenfell	2008	13.75	$150.00	$2,062.50
Subtotal:				$29,587.50
Costs (Travel Expenses Related to PRG Meetings in Los Angeles)
4/10/2008
Parking				$22.00
Metro				$2.50
Metrolink from airport				$8.25
Lunch				$5.95
Airfare				$269.00
4/16 - 4/17/2008
Parking				$44.00
Lodging				$194.77
Airfare				$273.00
Total Costs:				$819.47
Total Request:				$40,540.72

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 Contributions

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.

NRDC documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. The hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim. Unfortunately, NRDC does not allocate by issues its time spent on the substantive matters in this proceeding, as we require.¹⁸

NRDC's time records indicate that most of the events reflected in the timesheets were attended by more than one NRDC's staff members. NRDC explains that each NRDC representative was responsible for a particular utility and was present to provide "unique perspective, information, and input" on that utility.¹⁹ NRDC also explains that this arrangement served as "transitional overlap while NRDC's PRG participation shifted from Ms. Chang to Ms. Ettenson and Ms. Grenfell."²⁰

We noticed, however, that when two NRDC's representatives: Chang and Ettenson participated in the April 4, 2008 long-term goals workshop, for 4.5 and 6.0 hours, respectively, Ettenson at that time already appeared alone on behalf of NRDC and did so on many occasions. We consider reasonable to have one representative of NRDC attending the workshop. Therefore, we allow 4.5 Chang's hours and 1.5 Ettenson's hours for this task.

We also disallow compensation for participation of more than one person in PRGs meetings, whether statewide or utility-specific. Time records show internal pre- and post- meeting discussions, debriefings, document preparation, and review of materials, creating a basis for having one representative at the meetings. Hours of internal communications prior to and after, the meetings appear to sufficiently cover learning needs. We also note that NRDC's new attorney Grenfell, while frequently appearing as the second or third person at the PRG meetings, devoted to this proceeding much less time in general than other NRDC team members (compare, for example, with Ettenson).

Therefore, where more than one member of NRDC's staff participated in a PRG workshop or meeting, we allow compensation for only one person's hours, except for two PRG meetings held in October of 2007. During that period of time, responsibility for PRG participation was transferring from Chang to Ettenson, and participation of both experts appears reasonable.²¹

Furthermore, Grenfell participated in the January 29, 2008 meeting described as "local government feedback meeting run by Energy Division covering criteria to evaluate LGPs; types of projects local governments think would be helpful."²² Based on this description, we believe Grenfell's participation in the meeting was not warranted, duplicative, and went beyond what was reasonably required for NRDC's contributions to the PRGs.²³ We disallow five hours spent on this activity.²⁴

Further, on February 5, 2008, Chang, Ettenson and Grenfell had a meeting described as "internal strategy meeting to discuss review of Case Management Statements, and to discuss innovative suggestions to utilities."²⁵ Noting that no case management statements were filed in this proceeding and it is not clear what issue of the proceeding the "innovative suggestions" concerned, we disallow this time.

The table below summarizes adjustments discussed above:

Contributions to D.08-07-047
Event	Requested Hours	Allowed	Explanation
04/04/2008 workshop	Chang: 4.50 Ettenson: 6.00	0.00 1.5	Unproductive participation
Contributions to PRGs/PAGs
10/24/2007 PRG	Chang: 0.5 Ettenson: 0.5	0.50 0.50	Unproductive participation
10/25/2007 PRG	Chang: 1.5 Ettenson: 1.5 Grenfell: 1.5	1.50 1.50 0.00	Unproductive participation
10/30/2007 PRG	Chang: 1.5 Ettenson: 2.00 Grenfell: 2.00	0.00 2.00 0.00	Unproductive participation
11/1/2007 PRG	Chang: 2.00 Ettenson: 2.00 Grenfell: 2.00	0.00 2.00 0.00	Unproductive participation
11/8/2007 PRG	Chang: 2.00 Ettenson: 2.00 Grenfell: 1.00	0.00 2.00 0.00	Unproductive participation
11/1920/07 PRG	Chang: 1.00 Ettenson: 2.00	0.00 2.00	Unproductive participation
11/30/2007 PRG	Ettenson: 2.00 Grenfell: 1.50	2.00 0.00	Unproductive participation
12/12/2007 PRG	Ettenson: 2.00 Grenfell: 2.00	2.00 0.00	Unproductive participation
1/15/2008 PRG	Chang: 1.00 Ettenson: 1.00 Grenfell: 1.00	0.00 1.00 0.00	Unproductive participation
1/29/2008 local government feedback meeting	Grenfell: 5.00	0.00	Not necessary for NRDC's contributions
1/31/2008 PRG	Chang: 5.50 Ettenson: 5.50	0.00 5.50	Unproductive participation
2/1/2008 PRG	Chang: 2.00 Ettenson: 2.00	0.00 2.00	Unproductive participation
2/1/2008 PRG	Chang: 3.5 Ettenson: 3.5	0.00 3.5	Unproductive participation
2/5/208 NRDC meeting re case management statements review	Chang: 2.00 Ettenson: 2.00 Grenfell: 2.00	0.00 0.00 0.00	Unsupported by the formal record

As to the rest of the time, we find it reasonable and necessary for NRDC's contributions to D.08-07-047 and the PRG process. We also take into consideration the fact that NRDC excluded from the request its time spent in numerous additional communications with utility representatives as well as other PRG members for added coordination and follow-up.²⁶

5.2. Intervenor Hourly Rates

We next take into consideration whether the claimed hourly rates are comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. NRDC requests and we previously adopted the hourly rate of $150 for Chang's work in 2007 in D.08-10-011. For Chang's work in 2008, NRDC requests an hourly rate of $155 which reflects a 3% cost of living adjustment to her 2007 rate.

NRDC requests an hourly rate of $145 for work performed by NRDC attorney Kristin Grenfell in 2007 and of $150 (3.4% increase) for her work in 2008, and provides a supporting document justifying the request. Grenfell has a JD and Master of Environmental Management, both from Duke University, more than two years of attorney experience, and more than three years of experience working on energy and environmental issues. Her requested rates are either below or at the lowest level of, the rate range established for specialists with her years of experience.

NRDC seeks an hourly rate of $120 for work performed by Ettenson in 2007 and of $125 (4% increase) for work performed in 2008 and provides a supporting document justifying the request. Ettenson has a Master's degree in Public Administration from Columbia University, a Bachelor's degree in Biology and Environmental Studies from Oberlin College, and three years of experience working on energy and environmental issues.

NRDC seeks an hourly rate of $100 for work performed by Peter Miller in 2008 and provides documents in support of the request. Miller has over twenty years of experience in the development and analysis of energy efficiency programs and policy. Miller served on the California Board for Energy Efficiency from 1997 to 2000 and testified on energy policy issues before various state and federal administrative and legislative bodies. Miller received his Master of Science degree in Resource Systems and Policy Design from Dartmouth College in 1994. In D.06-04-005, we awarded the rate of $150 for his work in 2005. NRDC requests now a discounted non-profit billing rate of $100 for this consultant.

We approve the newly requested rates because they either fall within or are below, the 2007-2008 rate ranges for intervenor representatives with the same professional experience.²⁷

5.3. Direct Expenses

NRDC's requested direct expenses consist only of those associated with NRDC's representative travel to Southern California Edison Company's and Southern California Gas Company's PRG meetings in Los Angeles. These expenses total $819.47 and include airfare, parking, transportation, lodging, and meal for the April 10^th, 16^th and 17^th travels. Unfortunately, NRDC fails to include receipts for its travel expenses. We note that NRDC waives other direct expenses. We award the travel expenses; however, we request that in the future claims, NRDC provide receipts for this category of direct expenses; otherwise, they will be disallowed.

¹⁸ D.98-04-059, at 48.

¹⁹ Request, at 8.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ See, NRDC's letter of May 4, 2009, clarifying participation of the individual staff members in PRG process. The letter can be found in the "Correspondence" file for the proceeding.

²² Request, at 24.

²³ Two days later, both Chang and Ettenson participate in a meeting described as "LGP meeting: strategic plan and criteria development" for another 5.5 hours, which we allow for Ettenson.

²⁴ NRDC's letter of May 4, 2009, does not explain why NRDC's presence at the meeting was indispensable for NRDC's contributions to this proceeding.

²⁵ See Request, at 20, 22, and 24.

²⁶ Request, at 8.

²⁷ D.08-04-010, at 5.