5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution we determine whether amount of compensation requested is reasonable. Pursuant to D.98-04-059, we evaluate whether the costs of a customer's participation bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through their participation. One approach to this evaluation is to ascertain the dollar value, if possible, of the customer's participation. We also consider intangible benefits. Next, we assess whether the hours claimed for the customer's efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to Commission decisions are reasonable. Finally, in accordance with § 1806, we take into consideration the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons.

5.1 Aglet's Request

The components of Aglet's requested compensation award are summarized in the following table.⁷

Item	Year(s)	Hours	Rate	Total
Professional time - Weil	2002-03	330.7	$220	$ 72,754.00
Travel and compensation time	2002-03	82.9	$110	9,119.00
Professional time - Weil	2004	66.5	$250	16,625.00
Travel and compensation time	2004	29.5	$125	3,687.50
Copies				1,346.83
Postage and overnight delivery				649.60
FAX charges				14.00
Travel expenses				1,662.27
Total Request				$105,858.20

Aglet estimates that its participation directly saved ratepayers $340,000 for internet site maintenance expenses alone. Aglet also estimates that its participation accounted for a share of ratepayer savings for other issues on which it substantially contributed. These savings exceed Aglet's request for $108,858.20. As indicated in our extensive evaluation of Aglet's substantial contributions, Aglet's participation also led to intangible benefits that cannot easily be quantified. By either measure, Aglet's participation in this GRC was productive.

Aglet states that its request includes all professional time, travel time, time spent preparing the compensation request, and all direct expenses. Aglet's request includes no costs related to its earlier compensation request in this proceeding. Since time spent by Aglet on outside counsel and GRC expenses did not lead to a substantial contribution we will exclude the 35 associated professional hours. We allocate 83% of the excluded hours to 2002/2003 and 17% to 2004 on the basis of Aglet's total claimed professional hours for those time periods, or 330.7 hours and 66.5 hours, respectively. Accordingly, we exclude 29 hours from Aglet's request for 2002/2003 and 6 hours from 2004.

SCE was able to demonstrate that many of the words and phrases that Aglet included in its direct testimony on E&BD expenses in this proceeding appear verbatim in Aglet's direct testimony on customer retention and economic development in a recent Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) GRC. Based upon SCE's discovery that Aglet may have relied upon its own work in another proceeding, SCE argues that Aglet should not be compensated twice for the same work product. SCE further argues that at a minimum, ratepayers should realize some benefit from the cost savings when an intervenor submits such testimony.

Aglet notes in its reply to SCE that it relied on portions of the testimony that it submitted in this proceeding when it later served testimony in the PG&E proceeding. Aglet contents that this demonstrated operational efficiency, and that it is not requesting double compensation for the same work.

We are confident that Aglet's use of certain language that it developed for this proceeding in the PG&E proceeding reflects operational efficiencies as Aglet contends. We find no evidence that Aglet double charged for the same work product. More significantly, Aglet responded to the specific E&BD issues that were raised in this proceeding, and it substantially contributed to the Commission's consideration of those issues. There is no basis for reducing Aglet's compensation award simply because it adapted portions of testimony from one proceeding for use in another proceeding.

Aglet's Director, James Weil, is an expert in utility ratemaking and has more than 20 years of utility-related experience. Aglet requests approval of an hourly rate of $220 for professional work performed in 2002 and 2003 and one half of that amount for travel time associated with professional work in 2002 and 2003. We find these rates reasonable as we previously approved them for work performed in 2000. (See D.00-07-015.) Aglet requests approval of an hourly rate of $250 for professional work performed during 2004. In D.04-12-039 we approved this rate and we again utilize it here.

The itemized direct expenses of $3,672.70 submitted by Aglet include costs for travel, photocopying, postage, telephone/fax and delivery services, representing approximately 3.5% of the total compensation requested. The cost breakdown included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. We find these costs reasonable.

5.2 Greenlining's Request

The components of Greenlining's requested compensation award are summarized in the following table.

Item	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Attorney/Staff
Robert Gnaizda	2002	37.4	$435.00	$ 16,269.00
Robert Gnaizda	2002	1.5	$217.50	326.25
Robert Gnaizda	2003	34.2	$450.00	15,390.00
Robert Gnaizda	2003	.5	$225.00	112.50
Robert Gnaizda	2004	32.5	$495.00	16,087.50
Robert Gnaizda	2004	.5	$247.50	123.75
Itzel Berrio	2002	53.7	$265.00	14,230.50
Itzel Berrio	2002	1.5	$132.50	198.75
Itzel Berrio	2003	63.1	$290.00	18,299.00
Itzel Berrio	2003	1	$145.00	145.00
Itzel Berrio	2004	25.4	$310.00	7,874.00
Itzel Berrio	2004	29	$155.00	4,495.00
Noelle Abastillas	2004	2.9	$110.00	319.00
Subtotal8				$ 93,173.25
Expert
John C. Gamboa	2002	1.6	$325.00	$ 520.00
John C. Gamboa	2003	2.35	$350.00	822.50
John C. Gamboa	2004	1.75	$385.00	673.75
Michael Phillips	2002	5	$360.00	1,800.00
Michael Phillips	2003	27	$360.00	9,720.00
Gelly Borromeo	2002	3.5	$300.00	1,050.00
Gelly Borromeo	2003	7	$300.00	2,100.00
Subtotal				$ 16,686.25
Direct Expenses
Photocopying				$ 1,099.00
Postage				322.31
Subtotal				$ 1,421.31
Total Request				$111,280.81

Greenlining did not calculate direct ratepayer savings that resulted from its participation. However, Greenlining has adequately shown that ratepayers will receive intangible benefits as a result of its participation in the areas of executive compensation and workforce diversity. We find that Greenlining's participation was productive with respect to those issues.

Greenlining seeks compensation for less than 300 hours for its in-house staff. In view of the fact that Greenlining participated extensively in this GRC over the span of two years, we find the time expended to be reasonable. Since Greenlining did not substantially contribute in the area of philanthropy, we will exclude the associated hours in reliance upon the allocation information provided by Greenlining in its request. Specifically, we exclude 5% each of the time spent by Robert Gnaizda, Itzel Berrio, and John C. Gamboa.⁹

SCE contends that we should exclude the time spent by Gnaizda and Berrio on "general/multiple issues" because Greenlining has not demonstrated that it made a substantial contribution with respect to these issues. In its reply to SCE's response, Greenlining makes clear that this time is "general time," i.e., initial preparation time for which the Commission has found that allocation by issue is unnecessary. With the clarification provided by Greenlining in its reply, we are satisfied that the time may be properly included in the award in conformance with established practice regarding initial preparation time.

Greenlining requests hourly rates of $435 for 2002, $450 for 2003, and $495 for 2004 for its attorney Robert Gnaizda. The Commission has previously approved the requested rates for Gnaizda for 2002 and 2003 and we will again apply those rates here. For 2004 we apply the 8% adjustment authorized by Resolution ALJ-184 and an appropriate rounding convention to arrive at an authorized rate of $490 for Gnaizda.

Greenlining seeks hourly rates of $265 for 2002, $290 for 2003 and $310 for 2004 for its attorney Itzel Berrio. In D.03-10-062 the Commission approved an hourly rate of $265 for Berrio for work performed in 2002, and we again apply that rate here. We also apply the rate adopted in D.04-08-040 of $275 for work performed by her in 2003 and the rate adopted in D.04-10-033 of $300 for work performed by her in 2004.

Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $110 for its paralegal, Noelle Abastillas, for work performed in 2004. While this exceeds the previously authorized 2003 rate of $90 for Abastillas by more than the 8% indicated by Resolution ALJ-184, we adopt the requested rate based on Greenlining's individual showing that $110 is reasonable for a senior paralegal.

The Commission has previously approved hourly rates for Greenlining expert John Gamboa of $320 for 2002 and $330 for 2003. (See D.04-10-033.) Greenlining seeks rates for Gamboa of $325 for 2002, $350 for 2003 and $385 for 2004. We will apply the previously adopted rates of $320 and $330 for 2002 and 2003, respectively. For 2004 we apply the 8% adjustment authorized by Resolution ALJ-184 and an appropriate rounding convention to arrive at an authorized rate of $360 for Gamboa.

Greenlining seeks hourly rates for Michael Phillips of $360 for work performed in 2002 and 2003. D.04-08-025 approved an hourly rate of $310 for Phillips for 2003. Since the bulk of Phillips' work in this proceeding took place in 2003, and the five hours spent in 2002 occurred in December of that year, we will apply the previously authorized rate of $310 for both 2002 and 2003.

Greenlining witness Gelly Borromeo is an expert in women and minority business enterprise issues. Greenlining seeks hourly rates for Borromeo of $300 for work performed in 2002 (3.5 hours) and 2003 (7 hours). For both years we will apply the previously authorized rate of $160 that was authorized in D.04-08-020. Notwithstanding Greenlining's claim that the rate authorized in D.04-08-020 was "grossly inadequate," Greenlining has not provided information that would cause us to reach a different result than the one we reached after extensive analysis in D.04-08-020.

Greenlining seeks $1,421.31 in copying and postage expenses, which we find reasonable for extensive participation in a GRC.

5.3 TURN's Request

The components of TURN's requested compensation award are summarized in the following table.¹⁰

Item	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Attorney Fees
Marcel Hawiger	2002	168.75	$200	$ 33,750.00
Marcel Hawiger	2003	273.3	$250	68,325.00
Marcel Hawiger	2004	58.25	$270	15,727.50
Marcel Hawiger (comp.)	2002	1.25	$100	125.00
Marcel Hawiger (comp.)	2004	15	$135	2,025.00
Robert Finkelstein	2002	150.25	$340	51,085.00
Robert Finkelstein	2003	269.0	$365	98,185.00
Robert Finkelstein	2004	38.25	$395	15,108.75
Robert Finkelstein (comp.)	2004	24.0	$197.50	4,740.00
Daniel Edington	2003	10.0	$190	1,900.00
Michel Florio	2002	10.0	$385	3,850.00
Michel Florio	2003	2.0	$435	870.00
Matthew Freedman	2002	7.5	$200	1,500.00
Attorney Fees Subtotal				$297,191.25
Expert Witness Fees & Expenses
JBS Energy Inc.
William Marcus	2002	92.82	$175	$ 16,243.50
William Marcus	2003	40.16	$185	7,429.60
William Marcus	2004	1.91	$195	372.45
Gayatri Schilberg	2002	267.43	$130	34,765.90
Gayatri Schilberg	2003	141.61	$140	19,825.40
Gayatri Schilberg	2004	13.32	$150	1,998.00
Jeff Nahigian	2002	178.75	$115	20,556.25
Jeff Nahigian	2003	94.0	$125	11,750.00
Jeff Nahigian	2004	18.75	$140	2,625.00
Jim Helmich	2002-03	49.1	$150	7,365.00
Greg Ruszovan	2002-03	0.6	$115	69.00
JBS Expenses				404.20
JBS Subtotal				$123,404.30
Diversified Utility Consultants
Jacob Pous	2002-03	410.25	$150	$ 61,537.50
Sara Coleman	2002-03	65	$100	6,500.00
DUCI Expenses				4,210.31
DUCI Subtotal				$ 72,247.81
Other Expert Witnesses
Cynthia Mitchell	2002	11	$115	$ 1,265.00
Peter Bradford	2002	6	$250	1,500.00
Eugene Coyle	2002	6	$100	600.00
Other Witnesses Subtotal				$ 3,365.00
Other Reasonable Costs
Photocopying expense				$ 3,250.88
Postage costs				352.00
FAX charges				111.20
Federal Express/Delivery				334.58
Phone costs				151.09
Lexis charges				307.70
Attorney travel				578.78
Expert witness travel (Bradford)				822.10
Other Costs Subtotal				$ 5,908.33
Total Request				$502,116.69

TURN has estimated the direct ratepayer benefit of its participation in this GRC to be approximately $137.6 million. Under the standards of D.98-04-059, TURN's participation was productive, and its requested compensation is reasonable many times over as measured by ratepayer benefit.

Of the 39 discrete GRC issues addressed by TURN, as identified by TURN in its compensation request, we have determined that TURN contributed substantially on all but of five of them: SONGS workers' compensation, wood pole inspection reporting, residential late payment charge, working cash - insurance, and customer advances for construction. We recognize that this breakdown of 39 issues represents a relatively "granular" approach to analyzing substantial contribution that may disadvantage the intervenor unfairly, contrary to § 1801.3. We note that when broader issue categories based on the organization of D.04-07-022 are used as the basis for analysis, as set forth in the table of issues presented by TURN, we have determined that TURN contributed substantially on every one of the following issue categories: Generation, Transmission and Distribution, Customer Service, Administrative and General, Audit Issues, Rate Base, Depreciation, and Results of Operations.

The degree of granularity that we apply to determine whether any portion of an intervenor's participation costs should be excluded, because the costs are associated with work not resulting in a substantial contribution, is a matter of informed judgment. In this case, three of the five narrow issues for which we have determined that TURN did not substantially contribute is tied to one or more closely related issues for which it did contribute, and no exclusion is warranted. Even though TURN's proposal for wood pole inspection annual reporting was not adopted, TURN's comprehensive work on the broader topic of deferred maintenance of wood poles was highly beneficial to the Commission and resulted in several discrete substantial contributions. Given the scope of work that TURN performed in the area of wood pole maintenance and replacement, we do not believe it reasonable to attempt to identify and exclude the costs of performing a limited aspect of that work. Similarly, in view of TURN's comprehensive work on working cash issues, we will not attempt to measure the costs associated with the insurance sub-issue. Finally, we do not find it reasonable to attempt identification of the costs TURN incurred in connection with the sub-issue of the effect of line extension rule changes on Customer Advances for Construction.

We determine that it is reasonable and appropriate to estimate and exclude the costs TURN incurred with respect to SONGS workers' compensation and residential late payment charges. Adapting the "number of pages" allocation methodology used by Aglet in its request, we exclude 1.6% of the hours charged by TURN witness Marcus based on the relationship between the number of pages of his direct testimony on SONGS workers compensation (1) and the total pages of his direct testimony (62-45 in Exhibit 231 and 17 in Exhibit 373). Similarly, we exclude 3.4 of the time charged by TURN witness Schillerg based on the relationship between the pages of her direct testimony on residential late payment charges (1.5) and the total pages of her direct testimony (44-39 in Exhibit 258 and 5 in Exhibit 374). Finally, we exclude 1.8% of the time charged by TURN attorney Hawiger based on the number of pages of briefs devoted to these issues (4-2 for SONGS workers compensation and 2 for late payment charges) and the total pages of briefs (208-136 for opening brief and 72 for reply brief). Our adopted award will incorporate these exclusions.

SCE maintains that we should reduce the compensation awarded to TURN to reflect the fact that TURN witness Marcus submitted identical testimony on customer deposits in this proceeding and in other proceedings involving PG&E and SDG&E. This "self-duplication" argument is essentially the same argument that SCE made regarding Aglet's testimony on E&BD costs. As we noted in disposing of SCE's argument there, intervenors who contribute substantially to the Commission's resolution of a proceeding-specific issue should not necessarily be penalized for adapting language from one proceeding to another. We find no evidence that TURN has double charged for the same work product. SCE's request is denied.

The hourly rates for advocates and experts requested by TURN are shown in the following table. Also shown, where applicable, are references to Commission decisions that have approved the rate requested. We will adopt the use of previously approved hourly rates as reasonable in this proceeding. This is applicable to all of the requested attorney rates and several of the expert rates. Following the table we address TURN's request to establish hourly rates that have not been previously approved for the year the work was performed.

Attorney/Expert	Year	Rate	Decision
Marcel Hawiger	2002	$200	D.02-09-040
Marcel Hawiger	2003	$250	D.05-04-041
Marcel Hawiger	2004	$270	Res.ALJ-184
Robert Finkelstein	2002	$340	D.03-05-065
Robert Finkelstein	2003	$365	D.05-04-041
Robert Finkelstein	2004	$395	D.05-04-041
Daniel Edington	2003	$190	D.05-04-041
Michel Florio	2002	$385	D.02-09-040
Michel Florio	2003	$435	D.04-12-033
Matthew Freedman	2002	$200	D.03-04-011
William Marcus	2002	$175	D.02-11-020
William Marcus	2003	$185	D.05-01-029
William Marcus	2004	$195	n/a
Gayatri Schilberg	2002	$130	D.02-11-017
Gayatri Schilberg	2003	$140	n/a
Gayatri Schilberg	2004	$150	n/a
Jeff Nahigian	2002	$115	D.02-11-017
Jeff Nahigian	2003	$125	D.05-04-041
Jeff Nahigian	2004	$140	n/a
Jim Helmich11	2002-03	$150	D.04-02-020
Greg Ruszovan	2002-03	$115	D.03-04-011
Jacob Pous	2002-03	$150	n/a
Sara Coleman	2002-03	$100	n/a
Cynthia Mitchell	2002	$115	n/a
Peter Bradford	2002	$250	n/a
Eugene Coyle	2002	$100	n/a

For 2004, TURN requests a $10 (5.4%) increase in the approved 2003 hourly rate for William Marcus, from $185 to $195. Marcus is Principal economist for JBS Energy. TURN has demonstrated that the requested rate does not exceed the rate for expert witnesses presenting sworn testimony before the Commission even when historical data are used. TURN notes that the Commission has awarded compensation for its expert Kevin Woodruff, an expert with similar qualifications, at a $200 hourly rate. In light of Marcus' academic and professional qualifications and experience, the requested rate is reasonable and meets the market test of § 1806. Moreover, because the increase does not exceed 8%, it meets the presumption established by Resolution ALJ-184.¹²

For 2003, TURN requests a $10 (7.7%) increase in the approved 2002 hourly rate for Gayatri Schilberg, from $130 to $140. For 2004 TURN requests a $10 (7.1%) increase in the requested 2003 hourly rate for Schilberg, from $140 to $150. Schilberg is a senior economist for JBS Energy with over twenty years experience in economic and statistical research. TURN has demonstrated that the requested rates are below those for other similarly qualified expert witnesses sponsoring testimony before the Commission in the mid-1990's. The increases are consistent with Resolution ALJ-184.

For 2004, TURN seeks an increase of $15 (12%) over the approved 2003 rate for Jeff Nahigian, from $125 to $140. Like Schilberg, Nahigian is a senior economist with JBS Energy. He has over 15 years experience analyzing utility operations and rate design issues. In recent years he has developed particular expertise in the area of line and service extensions. In 2004 JBS Energy relied more heavily on Nahigian to sponsor expert witness testimony. While the sought increase for 2004 exceeds 8%, we note that the Resolution ALJ-184 provides for an individualized showing in appropriate circumstances. TURN has made such a showing here. In light of Nahigian's developing expertise and his increasing importance to the firm, we will approve the requested rate of $140 for 2004.

TURN seeks an hourly rate of $150 for both 2002 and 2003 for its depreciation witness Jacob Pous of Diversified Utility Consultants Inc. (DUCI). Pous has a BS degree in engineering and an MS in management and has completed a series of depreciation programs. In D.00-09-068 the Commission approved an hourly rate of $125 for Pous for work performed primarily in 1998. TURN notes that an increase of $25 from 1998 to 2002-2003 is modest. We agree. We find that the requested rate does not exceed the hourly rates for similarly qualified experts, and that it is reasonable here.

TURN seeks an hourly rate of $100 for both 2002 and 2003 for Sara Coleman of DUCI. Coleman is a Certified Public Accountant in Texas, where DUCI is located. This rate was approved by D.00-09-068 for work performed by Coleman primarily in 1998. As the requested rate was previously approved by the Commission, we will apply it here as reasonable.

The Scoping Memo asked parties to address several issues related to utility investment and resource planning, including the utility role in the development of generation resources. TURN secured the services of Peter Bradford and Eugene Coyle to help formulate its position on these resource planning issues. TURN subsequently utilized the services of Cynthia Mitchell of E³ Consulting to assist with the preparation of related testimony. We will address TURN's requested hourly rates for each of these consultants for work performed on behalf of TURN in 2002.

TURN seeks an hourly rate for Mitchell of $115. The Commission previously approved this rate for Mitchell in D.01-12-008. It is reasonable to apply that rate here.

Bradford is a former chairman of the New York State Public Service Commission and a former chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission. He has also served as Maine's Public Advocate, and was a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He currently teaches and consults on regulatory practices and procedures, including courses at Yale and Vermont Law School. Bradford charged TURN $1,500 for a six-hour roundtable session, or the equivalent of $250 per hour. TURN notes this is substantially below the fee he charges commercial customers, and that the Commission has awarded economist Terry Murray an hourly rate of $300 for work performed in 1998-99. We find that TURN's request for Bradford is reasonable as it is within the market range for similarly qualified experts.

The Commission has previously approved a rate of $100 for work performed by Coyle in 1997. (See D.99-01-020.) TURN is seeking approval of the same rate for 2002, which we find to be reasonable.

TURN seeks compensation for $5,908.33 in other costs such as copying, postage and delivery, and travel costs. These expenses are reasonable for a proceeding of this scope.