4. The Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

SSRC requested $667,620.64 as follows:

Attorneys

	Hours	Rate	Amount
2000-2001
M. Mihaly	218.4	$315/hr	68,796.00
O. Armi	335.4	$220/hr	73,788.00
J. Schue	404.6	$165/hr	66,759.00
Law Clerks	15.5	$60/hr	930.00
2002-2003
M. Mihaly	299.2	$325/hr	97,240.00
O. Armi	807.4	$230/hr	185,702.00
J. Schue	422.0	$175/hr	73,850.00
Law Clerks	72.5	$60/hr	4,350.00
SUBTOTAL	2,575.0		571,415.00

Experts

	Hours	Rate	Amount
W. Schmus (2001)	19.5	$225/hr	4,387.50
A. Smeerdyk (2001-2002)	215.5	$225/hr	48,487.50
SUBTOTAL	235.0		$52,875.00

Expenses

Source	Amount
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP	16,325.446
Anton Smeerdyk	1,157.55
SSRC Board of Directors	25,847.65
SUBTOTAL	$43,330.64
TOTAL	$667,620.64

A. Overall Benefits of Participation

In D.98-04-059, the Commission adopted a requirement that a customer must demonstrate that its participation was "productive," as that term is used in § 1801.3, where the Legislature gave the Commission guidance on program

administration. In that decision, we discuss the requirement that participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. Customers are directed to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. This exercise assists us in determining the reasonableness of the request and in avoiding unproductive participation.

SSRC does not discuss the productivity requirement in its request. While it should have done so, it is not difficult to find that its efforts were productive in this case. According to D.02-12-066, the cost estimate for the Valley-Rainbow Project was in excess of $341 million.⁷ Had the Commission granted SDG&E's application, ratepayers would have borne this expense. By contrast, SSRC spent approximately $667,000 on the case, a tiny fraction of the amount it saved ratepayers by helping convince the Commission that the Project was not needed. By any stretch of the imagination, SSRC's work was productive.

B. Hours Claimed

1. Disparity Between NOI and Compensation Request

SDG&E states that the Commission should reduce SSRC's award on the ground that SSRC underestimated how much it would spent on the case in its NOI. We agree with SDG&E that the disparity between SSRC's NOI estimate (approximately $377,500) and its compensation request of approximately $667,000 is high.

However, SSRC gives us several convincing explanations for the difference. SSRC explains that it is a community group participating in Commission proceedings for the first time, and that estimating its time in such a case was difficult. It notes that it prepared its estimate before the Commission issued a scoping memo in the case, before any party had submitted testimony, and before SDG&E had provided much of the information, lacking in its Application, regarding Project need. Nor was SSRC able to find a model NOI for estimating its costs, because at the time it submitted its estimate, there had not been an award request filed by a "similar grass roots community group" opposing a major transmission project. We agree that each of SSRC's points helps justify its uncertainty in preparing an estimate.

Moreover, SDG&E's position is legally incorrect. We have not held that an intervenor must be bound to its NOI estimate in all cases, and indeed have said just the opposite in at least two Commission decisions.⁸ In both cases, circumstances that came to light after the intervenor filed its NOI justified the disparity in the estimate and the actual request for compensation. We find that SSRC's factual explanations justify the disparity in this case.

Moreover, we agree with the principle underlying the cases allowing such a disparity. As SSRC explains, the purpose of an estimate in the NOI is for the ALJ to evaluate, in the context of the eligibility determination, whether a customer would have a significant financial hardship in light of the cost of participation in the proceeding. Because ALJ Cooke found such hardship if the cost of participation was $377,000, it follows logically that participation costing $667,000 would increase, rather than decrease, the financial hardship.

Finally, we also agree with SSRC that the intervenor compensation statute provides compensation for reasonable fees and costs incurred, not for those estimated in the NOI.⁹ Thus, to the extent we find SSRC's fees and costs reasonable and otherwise in conformity with the intervenor compensation statute, SSRC should be allowed to recover them regardless of a disparity between the NOI estimate and the compensation request.

2. Hours for Efforts Related
to Reliability and Economic
Need Issues

SDG&E states that SSRC's hours for the reliability need and economic issues are inflated. However, its sole basis for the argument is that SSRC's request - for 904.5 hours for time spent on reliability need issues and 464.7 hours for time spent on economic need issues - is out of proportion to SSRC's original estimate of 906 hours for the entire case. We reject this argument in the previous section of this decision.

We do not otherwise find a problem with SSRC's reliability need and economic need compensation request. The Commission squarely addressed both issues in D.02-12-066, and cited SSRC's efforts frequently in reaching its decision to reject SDG&E's application. The extent of SSRC's work on both areas was extensive, as we point out in the "substantial contribution" section of this discussion.

Furthermore, SSRC notes that it coordinated with other intervenors to avoid duplication. While we recently questioned the extent to which we may reduce an intervenor's award for duplication in D.03-03-031, even if there were cases in which reduction might be appropriate, this is not one of them. SSRC states that its attorneys coordinated with the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) at every stage in this proceeding to avoid duplication of effort, and the approach taken by SSRC differed significantly from the approach of ORA. For example, ORA's analysis focused on generating new power flow results and conducting independent economic modeling, whereas SSRC's approach was to focus on the problems in SDG&E's own studies and demonstrate that even those studies did not justify a need finding.

For the foregoing reasons, we award SSRC all of its requested compensation related to reliability need and economic need.

3. Unallocated Time

SDG&E states that because a significant amount of SSRC's time was unallocated to a particular issue, we should deduct that time from SSRC's request. SDG&E points out that the unallocated category is by far SSRC's largest request for compensation (1.150.2 hours, or approximately $250,000 of the requested $667,000). SDG&E states that SSRC fails to identify, as § 1802(h) requires, how any of this unallocated time resulted in Commission adoption of any of SSRC's factual contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations.

SSRC counters by explaining that the time at issue involved multiple issues that it could not allocate to a single issue. It explain that the time included such tasks as preparation of the protest, participation at prehearing conferences, preparation of prehearing conference statements, research regarding procedures and practice before the Commission, Public Records Act requests to the Commission, preparing and drafting data requests, preparing responses to procedural motions, and preparing the NOI and request for compensation. We agree that each of these activities is compensable under the substantial contribution standard set forth above, even if it is not easily attributable to a single issue.

SSRC also states that because it made a substantial contribution to all of the issues in the proceeding - a position we adopt in this decision - allocation of time to specific issues is less crucial:

A primary purpose of the allocation of hours is to allow the Commission to readily identify the number of hours spent on issues to which an intervenor did not prevail or make a substantial contribution. Because SSRC largely prevailed on all of the issues in the proceeding, its submission of activity logs describing each day's activities for each attorney or expert provides the Commission with detailed information about the allocation of work effort.¹⁰

We agree that because we are not denying SSRC compensation on any of the three issues on which it focused, the parsing of hours is less critical in this case. Given the importance of the tasks with unallocated time, we reject SDG&E's argument and allow SSRC compensation for such time.

4. Compensation for Press/Lobbying Time, Other Matters

a. Press Time

SDG&E also challenges SSRC's request for compensation for time spent communicating with the press or lobbying other governmental officials. SDG&E cites § 1801, which states that the purpose of the intervenor compensation statutes is to provide compensation for "participation" or "intervention" in Commission proceedings, and § 1802(a), which defines "compensation" as "payment for . . . [the reasonable fees and costs] of preparation for and participation in a proceeding."

SSRC responds that it is not seeking compensation for activities such as press conferences, for which the Commission has not compensated intervenors in the past.¹¹ Instead, SSRC states, it seeks compensation for time spent by its attorneys in responding to questions from the press about procedures before the Commission and about the information in SSRC's or SDG&E's filings. It also states that SSRC's members were only able to track the progress of the case through the local press, and that responding to questions from the media about the course of the proceedings was fundamental to the representation of the client.

We agree with SDG&E that such time is not compensable, even if spent as SSRC states. As we stated in D.96-06-029, "Communicating with the news media does not constitute participation in our proceedings within the meaning of Section 1801 et seq. Accordingly, we shall not grant compensation for time spent on these activities." We see no distinction between the time SSRC claims and other press communication time, and deny SSRC the time it spent on such efforts.

We summarize the deductions for press time and lobbying time in the next section.

b. Lobbying Time

SDG&E also requests that we deny time to SSRC for lobbying efforts aimed at non-CPUC officials, on the basis that such conduct does not meet the definition of "participation" or "intervention" in Commission proceedings. SSRC notes that, "SDG&E does not challenge time spent by SSRC's counsel with regard to the specific legislative proposals, both concerning routing of alternatives to the project, that directly impacted the course of the Commission's proceedings."¹²

We do not believe that any of this time is compensable. While communication with non-CPUC officials may have helped SSRC's cause, it did not involve participation in our proceeding. We deny SSRC the hours it spent "meeting with non-Commission governmental officials." We also deny SSRC the time it spent on specific legislative proposals, as we do not find that work on such proposals constituted participation in this proceeding.

According to declarations submitted with SSRC's reply papers, SSRC's attorneys spent the following time on the disallowed press and lobbying activities, which we deduct from SSRC's total award.

M. Mihaly	0.5 (comm. with gov't officials)	$315/hr	($157.50)
M. Mihaly	1.8 (comm. with press)	$325/hr	(585.00)
O. Armi	0.5 (comm. with gov't officials)	$230/hr	(115.00)
O. Armi	5.1 (comm. with press)	$230/hr	(1,173.00)
J. Schue	1.9 (comm. with gov't officials)	$175/hr	(332.50)
J. Schue	2.7 (comm. with press)	$175/hr	(472.50)
Deductions ($ 2,835.50)

c. Mr. Smeerdyk's Time

Finally, SDG&E states that the Commission should disallow 215.5 hours of time and expenses spent by SSRC's expert, Anton Smeerdyk, because he devoted most of his time to analyzing alternatives to the proposed Project. However, we have already found that even though the Commission did not reach environmental and siting issues, consideration of alternate routes was nonetheless an issue in Phase 1 for which SSRC is entitled to compensation.

Moreover, SSRC explains that Mr. Smeerdyk also spent considerable time on the reliability need issue. His activities included reviewing and analyzing data regarding long-term resources, load forecasts, and reviewing SDG&E, ISO and Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission planning documents. This is all work for which SSRC is entitled to compensation, as we have already found that the reliability need issue was directly addressed in D.02-12-066.

Finally, SDG&E states that SSRC had an agreement to share costs with the City of Temecula and the Pechanga, which did not cover Mr. Smeerdyk's time. SDG&E states that the fact that the agreement did not cover Mr. Smeerdyk's time and expenses "is a further and strong indication that SSRC's request for his time and expenses is not reasonable."¹³ SSRC explains that Mr. Smeerdyk's fees and expenses were not covered by the cost-sharing agreements with Temecula and the Pechanga because Mr. Smeerdyk agreed to represent SSRC on a contingency basis in recognition of the financial hardship to SSRC of participation.

We do not believe that the fact that the cost sharing agreement did not include Mr. Smeerdyk is a reason to disallow compensation for his work. There is nothing in the statute that requires a party to enter into a cost sharing agreement or, once it has entered into such an agreement, to share costs on everything. Thus, all of Mr. Smeerdyk's time and expenses are compensable.

d. Condemnation Work

SDG&E states that SSRC may not recover for efforts spent researching SDG&E's right to condemn private property in order to make room for the Valley-Rainbow transmission line, and its right to enter private property for surveys and pre-condemnation work. The basis for SDG&E's claim is that the Commission should disallow time SSRC requests for all issues related to eminent domain and condemnation because SSRC's counsel took a voluntary reduction for some of this time.

SSRC responds that although its counsel voluntarily reduced the time spent investigating individual landowners' concerns regarding pre-condemnation notices they were receiving from SDG&E, SSRC's counsel did not reduce time for research of other eminent domain issues of direct relevance to the Commission's proceeding. These issues include the ability of utilities to exercise condemnation power for economic projects (Pub. Util. Code § 625); the Commission's authority over pre-condemnation activities; and the ability of utilities to condemn over tribal land.

We find that this time is related to the environmental and siting issue, for which we have already found that SSRC made a substantial contribution. SSRC has reduced time spent on individual landowners' issues, as was proper. The remaining issues relate to issues of broad interest and relevance to the Commission's siting decision,¹⁴ and we grant SSRC's request in this area.

C. Hourly Rates

1. Attorneys

SSRC seeks a total of $571,415 in attorneys' fees. For 2000 and 2001, SSRC requests hourly rates for its attorneys that are consistent with those the Commission has already found reasonable for each period in question.¹⁵ We will adopt these rates for this compensation award, as follows: $315 per hour for Mr. Marc Mihaly, $220 per hour for Ms. Osa Armi, and $165 per hour for Ms. Janette Schue.

For 2002 and 2003, SSRC requests small increases for each attorney based on the grounds that SSRC's law firm raised its rates modestly after 2001, the new rates are more reflective of rates charged by other firms in the same practice areas, and the attorneys gained substantial additional experience. SSRC seeks a $10 per hour rate increase for each attorney, to $325 per hour for Mr. Marc Mihaly, $230 per hour for Ms. Osa Armi, and $175 per hour for Ms. Janette Schue. SDG&E does not oppose these increases.

We find the increases reasonable based on hourly rates we have awarded in 2002 and 2003 to attorneys with comparable education and experience. With regard to Mr. Mihaly, in D.03-05-027, we will look to compensation awarded a similarly situated lawyer to determine the reasonableness of the requested increase.

We awarded attorney Randy Wu $385 per hour for his 2002 work before this Commission. As we explained in D.02-09-040, Wu was admitted to the California bar in 1977 after receiving his law degree from Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley. From 1977 through 1981, Wu served as staff counsel at the Commission. In 1981, he became an ALJ at the Commission, serving in that role until 1988, presiding over a variety of gas and electric applications and cases. In 1988, Wu joined El Paso Natural Gas, representing that company before state and federal regulatory agencies. From 1997 through 2000, Wu engaged in merchant plant development for El Paso Merchant Energy, focusing on the development and financing of two plants in Massachusetts and Connecticut. He joined TURN in an of-counsel role in 2001.

Mr. Mihaly is a partner at the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, LLP. In 1974 (3 years before Mr. Wu), he received his law degree from the same school as Mr. Wu, Boalt Hall School of Law, and was admitted to the California bar. Before co-founding his law firm, Mr. Mihaly worked for the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County for two years (1974-76). He worked as a California Deputy Attorney General in the Environmental Unit from 1976-80. He has practiced predominantly in the fields of administrative, land use, and environmental law since co-founding his firm in 1980. He has specialized experience in development agreements and planning issues related to complex developments; air quality permitting and litigation; all aspects of growth limitation; and the California Environmental Quality Act.

While Mr. Mihaly does not have the same level of experience before this Commission as Mr. Wu,¹⁶ this difference is made up in the difference between Mr. Wu's approved hourly rate of $385 and Mr. Mihaly's requested rate of $325. We find that SSRC has justified a $10 increase in Mr. Mihaly's rate for 2002-03 to from $315 to $325.

As for Ms. Armi, who requests an increase from $220 to $230, we also find the new rate to be justified. In D.03-04-050, we compared Ms. Armi's experience to that of two other attorneys, Itzel Berrio and Enrique Gallardo, and found the three to have comparable experience.¹⁷ Ms. Armi, like Ms. Berrio and Mr. Gallardo, is a 1997 law school graduate. Because we increased the 2002 rate for Ms. Berrio and Mr. Gallardo to $235, Ms. Armi's requested increase to $230 is also justified and we thereby adopt it.

SSRC requests that we increase Ms. Schue's rate from $165 to $175. We also find this request reasonable based on the $175 hourly rate we approved for Caroline Jacobs in D.03-01-075. Both Ms. Schue and Ms. Jacobs graduated from law school in 2000 - Ms. Schue from Stanford University School of Law. Ms. Schue has been with the Shute, Mihaly firm since 2000, and has focused on litigation and non-litigation matters involving state and federal environmental laws, administrative law, state planning and zoning law, and regulatory matters. She has practiced before this Commission on three proceedings in addition to this one. We find the requested increase to $175 for 2002-03 to be reasonable.

2. Experts

SSRC requests that time for experts Mr. Anton Smeerdyk and Mr. Wayne Schmus be compensated at the rate of $225 per hour. SSRC seeks a total of $53,875 in expert fees. SDG&E does not challenge these proposed rates. The Commission has not previously approved a compensation rate for these experts, so we must examine their experience and expertise to assess the reasonableness of the requested rate.

a. Mr. Smeerdyk

Mr. Smeerdyk devoted time to the proceeding in 2001 and 2002. Mr. Smeerdyk holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from California State University at Long Beach and is a licensed electrical engineer. Mr. Smeerdyk presently works as a consultant on electrical engineering projects. Mr. Smeerdyk is retired from SCE, where he worked for 27 years in engineering and management positions. At SCE, Mr. Smeerdyk worked in the Transmission & Distribution Department in the capacity of Manager of Division Engineering, Manager of Region Design and Engineering Centers, and Manager of Reliability Engineering. Mr. Smeerdyk's experience includes: serving on SCE Transmission Planning Committee, which is responsible for the review and approval of the capital improvement projects pertaining to the reinforcement and/or additions of all transmission, distribution and substation facilities; preparation of the 5-year and 10-year distribution substation planning programs; preparation of load forecasts; developing the system interface and agreements for the major renewable resource wind park generation developments in the Tehachapi Mountains; development of methods of service to many major cogeneration projects and to major industrial, commercial and residential developments; developing system performance and reliability enhancement programs; developing a customer power quality monitoring and consultation program. Mr. Smeerdyk served on various inter-utility committees for review and rewriting of PUC rules applicable to new line and service extension.

SSRC does not state whether Mr. Smeerdyk usually bills his time at $225 per hour, the requested amount. An examination of previous expert awards shows that this amount is in the uppermost range of expert hourly fees we have approved in intervenor compensation claims. For example, two parties that appear as experts constantly before this Commission, James Weil (an engineer) and William Marcus, currently receive $220 and $175 per hour, respectively.¹⁸ William Ahern, currently Executive Director of this Commission, received $220 per hour when he worked as a policy expert for Consumers Union in 2002.¹⁹ While SSRC claims that the rate it has requested for Mr. Smeerdyk is reasonable and consistent with similarly experienced expert consultants, we do not believe the record bears out this claim.

The best expert for comparison to Mr. Smeerdyk, in our view, is James Weil. As we found in 1998 in D.98-10-007,²⁰ Weil has a master's degree and doctoral degree in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley. At that time - five years ago - he had more than 21 years of experience in the utility industry. His experience includes 14 years with the Commission staff, seven of which were as an administrative law judge (ALJ).

We do not find that Mr. Smeerdyk's experience matches that of Mr. Weil. While Mr. Weil has appeared in probably dozens of Commission proceedings, Mr. Smeerdyk's Commission experience is far more limited. Mr. Smeerdyk holds a B.S. degree in engineering, while Mr. Weil has a doctoral degree in the same field. While the amount of industry experience demonstrated by Mr. Weil - with 26 years - and Mr. Smeerdyk - with 27 years - is equivalent, we believe the difference in their education and Commission experience warrants a different hourly rate. We will award Mr. Smeerdyk $190 per hour for his work on this case in 2001 and 2002.

b. Mr. Schmus

Mr. Schmus performed work on the case in 2001. Mr. Schmus holds a B.S. in engineering from Harvey Mudd College and is a licensed professional electrical engineer. Mr. Schmus is a consultant on electrical engineering projects. Mr. Schmus is retired from SCE, where he worked for 34 years in engineering and management positions. Mr. Schmus has 24 years of experience in transmission planning. Mr. Schmus worked at SCE in the capacity of Manager of Transmission Planning, Manager of Protection Engineering, Chief Distribution Maintenance Engineer, Chief Distribution Design Engineer, and Chief Engineer Generation Planning.

Mr. Schmus' experience includes: preparing strategic and expansion plans for a 18,000 MW transmission system (500 kV to 69 kV); preparing feasibility and benefit/cost studies for interconnections with other utilities; appearing as a licensing witness before the Public Utilities Commission for transmission lines including the 240-mile 500,000 volt Devers-Palo Verde Line; performing system stability studies for the Pacific Intertie transmission network and transmission for major coal-fired generation stations in the Southwest; preparing strategies and recommendations for land and right-of-way purchasing and selling; modeling expert for generators, exciters, governors, damping systems, loads in transient studies; preparing sub-synchronous resonance analysis and mitigation; coordinating the first use of induction generation connected to the SCE system for use in energy recovery plants; leading the program to recreate and predict major electrical disturbances and blackouts in the western United States; coordinating the interconnection of between 2000 and 3000 megawatts of renewable resource generation under the Qualifying Facility provisions of the California Public Utilities Commission; leading the team to rewrite the transmission reliability and performance criteria; designing remedial action schemes for control of stability and overload; and performing High Voltage Direct Current Transmission planning and performance evaluation.

Mr. Schmus is the author of several publications, including: "Transmission Voltage Recovery Delayed by Stalled Air Conditioning Compressors," (co-author) 1993 Prize Paper Award, IEEE PES; "Deterministic and Probabilistic Reliability Criteria Applications in Electric Power Transmission Planning," 1989, IEEE PES; "Subsynchronous Resonance and Torsional Stresses in Turbine-Generator Shafts," (co-author) 1973, IEEE PES; "Dynamic Modeling of Loads in Stability Studies," (co-author) 1969, IEEE PES. Mr. Schmus also served as Chairman of the Reliability Assessment Subcommittee of the North American Electric Reliability Council ("NERC"), which prepared the Ten-Year Reliability Assessment for North-American Utilities in 1987 and 1988.

Once again, SSRC does not state whether its requested hourly rate - $225 - for Mr. Schmus is his usual hourly rate, so we do not know whether the rate is market based. Moreover, as we state with regard to Mr. Smeerdyk, $225 is at the highest end of the range of expert rates we have awarded in Commission proceedings.

For the same reasons as we set forth with regard to Mr. Smeerdyk, we award Mr. Schmus $190 per hour for his work on this case in 2001.

3. Law Clerks

SSRC seeks compensation for law clerk time at $60 per hour. SSRC explains that its law clerks are generally second-semester second- or third-year law students selected through a highly competitive application process. While SSRC does not identify the law clerks by name, the Commission has allowed a range of rates for law student interns from $55²¹ to $85²² per hour. Shute, Mihaly bills clients $100 per hour for law clerk work. Based on our precedent and the fact that SSRC has significantly discounted its law clerk rate, we find SSRC's request reasonable. We award it the entire amount it seeks for law clerk fees for 2001-03 at the requested $60 per hour.

D. Costs

SSRC requests $43,330.64 for costs.²³ This is a significant sum, and far more than we generally see in cost requests, which usually include only requests for incidentals such as photocopying and postage, faxes, telephone calls, and small amounts for travel expense. Here, by contrast, SSRC seeks costs incurred by its lawyers, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, and SSRC's own costs and costs incurred by SSRC's expert. We discuss each set of costs in turn.

1. Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger's Costs

The costs SSRC seeks for its lawyers amount to $16,325.44 (reduced in comments to $3,763.31), alone far in excess of all or virtually all cost awards we have made pursuant to the intervenor compensation statute. The cost figure includes charges for travel expenses, office supplies, messengers, facsimile transmission, telephone, and Lexis-Nexis computerized legal research.

The draft decision disallowed many of these costs, because they were not broken down by category and seemed otherwise excessive. As we detail in the section entitled "Waiver of Comment Period" below, SSRC has now justified recovery of $13,763.31 in costs for Shute, Mihaly, and we award those costs.

2. SSRC's Costs

SSRC seeks $25,847.65 for costs related to its own organizational work. While we have allowed recovery of attorneys' fees related to community organizing in the past,²⁴ we are unaware of a decision - and SSRC does not cite one - in which we awarded community-organizing costs.

SSRC estimates that incurred approximately $30,324.68 for office supplies, and approximately $1,000 for telephone charges. It halves the office supply figure and adds the telephone charges to seek a total of $16,162.34 in office costs. It also seeks $5,602.24 in airline flights, $2,461.55 in hotels, and other incidental travel expenses, for a total of $9,685.31 in travel costs. Thus, its total cost request for SSRC is $25,847.65.

We find the office costs excessive. They clearly include copying, postage, and other supplies related to community organizing rather than simply participation in this proceeding (which costs appear as part of the Schue, Mihaly request). Indeed, we cannot discern any relationship between the expenses and participation in this proceeding, except to the extent that SSRC's existence as a community organization was required in order for it to participate here. However, we do not believe an organization's start-up funding is directly related to its participation in this proceeding.

As SDG&E points out, "other reasonable costs," are defined as "reasonable out-of-pocket expenses directly incurred by a customer that are directly related to the contentions or recommendations made by the customers." The expenses here bear no direct relationship to SSRC's "contentions or recommendations." Therefore, we disallow the entire $16,162.34 request for office costs.

The travel expenses are also excessive. SSRC concedes that this expense includes travel for six SSRC Board members to attend a Commission meeting. While it states that the Board's "presence before the Commission, including its attendance at the December 12, 2002 [Commission] meeting, was an essential aspect of the group's advocacy," we do not believe that such attendance related "directly" to SSRC's "contentions or recommendations." Thus, we disallow $8,716.77, 90 percent of the $9,685.31 in requested travel expenses, leaving an award for these expenses of $968.54.

3. Mr. Smeerdyk's Costs

SSRC seeks $1,157.55 in costs related to his testimony in the proceeding. The costs are for mileage, copying, postage and travel, and all appear reasonable. We award SSRC these costs in total.