Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

Greenlining requests $57,339.19 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

Attorney/Expert	Year	Rate	Hours	Without Multiplier	With Multiplier
Robert Gnaizda	2003	$450	28.2	$12,690.00	$19,035.00
John C. Gamboa	2003	$350	2.0	700.00	1,050.00
Gelly Borromeo	2003	$300	10.0	3,000.00	4,500.00
Itzel Berrío	2002	$265	12.7	3,365.50	5,048.25
Itzel Berrío	2003	$290	62.4	18,096.00	27,144.00
Noelle Abastillas	2003	$ 90	2.25	202.50	202.507
Total Fees				$38,054.00	$56,979.75
Postage				$359.44	$359.448
Total Fees and Costs				$38,413.44	$57,339.19

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. Thus, only those fees and costs associated with the customer's work that the Commission concludes made a substantial contribution are reasonable and eligible for compensation.

To assist us in determining the reasonableness of the requested compensation, 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. This showing assists us in determining the overall reasonableness of the request.

Greenlining states that its participation was productive, and is significantly less than its estimated $2 billion of additional contracts to diverse suppliers over five years, or more than $400 million annually. The record does not support a specific dollar benefit as a result of the changes to GO 156 adopted by this rulemaking. However, Greenlining's efforts contributed substantially to the Commission's rulemaking amending GO 156 to eliminate exclusions, and this amendment should encourage the utilities to make additional contracts with diverse suppliers and stimulate competition for those contracts. This benefit, although hard to quantify, is substantial. Thus, we find that Greenlining's efforts have been productive.

Because not all of a customer's efforts in a proceeding result in substantial contributions to Commission decisions, we must also assess whether the hours claimed are reasonable. Greenlining believes that the total number of hours claimed is reasonable given the scope and complexity of this proceeding. We agree, with three exceptions.

The first exception concerns hours spent on a full panel hearing held before the Commission on July 22, 2003 on diversity issues. The hearing was held outside of this proceeding and focused on two areas: the utilities' purchase of goods and services from minority, women, and disabled veteran owned business enterprises and diversity within the utilities' workforce. Greenlining claims compensation for all hours spent preparing for and attending this hearing; Greenlining does not note that the hearing was not a part of R.03-02-035 or specific to GO 156 but, rather, part of a broader Commission effort to seek comment on diversity issues.

Normally, we would not grant intervenors compensation for the work performed at the full panel hearing because the hearing was not part of the proceeding to which intervenors claim they made a substantial contribution. However, the full panel hearing was convened largely as a result of Greenlining's efforts and was held contemporaneously with the rulemaking. The issue of eliminating GO 156 exclusions was addressed by Greenlining in the full panel hearing. Because of these unique circumstances, we will award Greenlining compensation for 50% of the time spent on the full panel hearing because our review of the transcript of the full panel hearing demonstrates that, at most, Greenlining directed 50% of its presentation to the issues raised in the instant proceeding.⁹

The second exception concerns time spent by Greenlining after this proceeding was closed. Because this work occurred after the issuance of the final decision in the rulemaking, and is unrelated to the workshops directed by
D.03-11-024, it did not substantially contribute to this proceeding. We therefore reduce Greenlining's hours accordingly.¹⁰ The third exception concerns an hour claimed for travel which we reduce by 50% because hours associated with travel are compensated at half of the usual hourly rate.¹¹

Finally, in determining compensation under the statute, we take into consideration the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons. Greenlining's requested hourly rates for Gnaizda and for its paralegal Abastillas meet this standard; several of its other requested rates do not.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $450 for work performed by attorney Robert Gnaizda in this proceeding in 2003. The Commission previously approved a rate of $435 for work performed in 2002 in D.03-10-062. Based on additional experience and inflation, a rate of $450 per hour for Gnaizda's work in 2003 (a 3.4% increase) is reasonable in comparison to the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $350 for work performed by expert John Gamboa in this proceeding in 2003. The Commission in D.03-10-062 approved a rate of $310 for his work performed in 2001. Greenlining does not offer any comparison to compensation paid to others providing services similar to those provided by Gamboa in this proceeding, so assessing the reasonableness of the requested increase for work in 2003 from the authorized 2001 rate is difficult. In the absence of such information, we utilize an annual escalation rate of 3.4% (the same escalation rate used for Gnaizda) to set a 2003 rate for Gamboa of $330 per hour.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $300 for work performed by its expert Gelly Borromeo. Borromeo is an advisor to financial institutions on their minority contract programs and to non-profit organizations involved in community economic and small business development. This is the first time we have set an hourly rate for Borromeo for her work before the Commission.

According to Greenlining's supplement to its request for compensation, Borromeo obtained a degree in Marketing and Public Relations in 1981 from De La Salle University in Manila. Borromeo also completed the Minority Business Enterprise Program in 1999 and the Advanced Minority Business Enterprise Program in 2000 at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College. In 1992, Borromeo and her husband launched Asian Business Ventures and started publishing Asian Entrepreneur Magazine, America's first magazine focused on Asian businesses. Borromeo is also a member of numerous professional and civic organizations. Greenlining states that Borromeo's experience is similar to that of Terry Murray, who was authorized a rate of $300/hour for work done in 1998 and 1999 for The Utility Reform Network (TURN).

In evaluating the proper hourly rate, we look to the experience of a particular expert, relevant market rate data, and the rates awarded to peers practicing before the Commission. Here, Greenlining points us to only one other expert appearing before us and provides no other comparative market data to evaluate Borromeo's rate. We do not find Murray's experience comparable to Borromeo's because Murray, who has an M.A. in Economics, has had at least 20 years of experience in her field testifying before this Commission, either for Commission staff or as a consultant for other parties. Although Borromeo has 20 years of general work experience, her WMBE-focused experience begins about 1992, which gives her 12 years of experience in her field. Moreover, Borromeo has limited experience testifying before the Commission, having appeared recently in two other proceedings.

In addition, in seeking a rate for Murray of $300/hour, TURN argued that demand for telecommunications experts was high following the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, resulting in a higher market rate for those experts. We found this argument significant when we set Murray's rate at $300/hour in D.01-08-010 for work performed in 1998 and 1999. Although Greenlining argues that the demand for WMBE experts like Borromeo is high, Greenlining offers no support for this statement, such as the market rate for other WMBE experts.

Borromeo's credentials are more similar to Cynthia Mitchell, an economist who has consulted with TURN, and Jody London, a senior policy analyst for Grueneich Resource Advocates. Mitchell received an M.S. in Economics in 1981 and has nearly 30 years in of experience in energy policy, including nine years as chief economist for the Nevada Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection. Mitchell also has been an expert witness in utility commission proceedings in 12 states and the District of Columbia. D.01-12-008, 2001 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1066 *9, awarded Mitchell $115/hour for work performed in 2000-2001. London obtained her B.A. in English in 1985 and her M.A. in 1990. London has 13 years of experience in the energy industry, including six years on the Commission's own staff. London was awarded $160/hour for her services in 2003. (See e.g., D.03-06-065, 1992 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1030*14-15 and D.04-05-010, 2004 Cal. PUC LEXIS 280 ** 11-12.)

Here, Greenlining states that Borromeo charges her own clients between $1500 and $3000 per day for up to eight hours a day, depending on whether her client is a for-profit or non-profit institution. Even if the requested rate is the consultant's standard rate, the key issue is whether the rate is reasonable compared to the market rates paid to persons of similar training and experience for similar services. We therefore find a 2003 rate of $160/hour for Borromeo to be reasonable given Borromeo's training and experience and the comparable market data.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $265 for work performed by attorney Itzel Berrío in 2002. The Commission in A.03-10-062 approved this rate for work performed by Berrío in 2002, and we find this rate reasonable. For her work in 2003, Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $290. Greenlining states that Berrío, who has practiced law since 1997, should be considered a junior partner. Berrío's training and experience compares favorably to that of Osa Armi, also a 1997 law school graduate, who represented Save Southwest Riverside County. In
D.03-04-050 and D.04-02-026, we found that Armi and Berrío have comparable experience. In D.04-02-026, Armi was awarded a 2003 hourly rate of $230 (an increase of less than 5% over her 2002 rate). Enrique Gallardo, another 1997 law school graduate, was awarded a 2003 rate of $265 in D.04-03-030. For these reasons, the requested rate of $290, an increase of 9.4% from the 2002 rate, is high compared to the rates awarded for similar services from comparably qualified persons. A rate of $275 per hour for work performed in 2003 (a 3.8% increase) is reasonable in comparison to the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $90 for work performed by paralegal Noelle Abastillas in this proceeding in 2003. The Commission has not previously approved a rate for Abastillas. Abastillas is a 2003 college graduate who worked in a paralegal capacity for Greenlining. In past decisions, we awarded recent college graduates and novice paralegals a rate of $75 per hour for work performed in 1999. Therefore, $90 is a reasonable rate for this type of work in 2003.