5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

Adams requests $95,183 for his participation in this proceeding, as follows:

Advocate's Fees	Year	Hours	Rate	Amount
William Adams	2001	18.3	$130	$ 2,379
	2002	311.8	$130	$ 40,534
	2003	193.0	$130	$ 25,090
	2004	41.2	$130	$ 5,356
	2005	24.3	$130	$ 3,159
Less 50% reduction for travel time and preparation of request4				($12,825)
Advocate's Fees - Subtotal				$ 63,693
Attorney's Fees Connie D. Easterly	2004 2005	69.1 43.7	$265 $275	$ 18,312 $ 12,018
Less 50% reduction for preparation of compensation request				$ (6,009)
Attorney's Fees - Subtotal				$ 24,321
Consultants' Fees Roger Poynts	2004	1.9	$175	$ 333
Jack Deschaine	2004	1.8	$150	$ 270
Consultant's Fees - Subtotal				$ 603
Other Expenses Travel, Transportation & Lodging				$ 5,566.57
Photocopy costs				$ 746.50
Postage and delivery				$ 252.93
Total Other Expenses:				$ 6,566.00
Total Fees and Other Expenses:				$ 95,183.00

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.

Adams states that the nature of these proceedings precludes an assessment of dollar value to the benefits of his participation. Similarly, straightforward issue allocation is difficult because the issues were intermingled with the proposed changes. Adams points out that on any given day of the workshops, numerous issues were being discussed. The agenda of PRCs scheduled for discussion changed daily, as PRCs that had not been adopted could be brought into the agenda at any time. Subcommittees were formed regularly to deal with discrete issues concerning a particular PRC.

Since the detailed timesheets submitted by Adams on behalf of himself and the attorney he retained are generalized in nature, we are unable to isolate time spent on issues in which a substantial contribution was made. Had Adams been able to break down his efforts by issue, the breakdown would have facilitated the process of eliminating certain issues from the award. While we are reluctant to reduce the requested award by a percentage of hours claimed, Adams provides us with no other basis upon which to reach a judgment.

We have determined that Adams made a substantial contribution to the decision in the case of seven PRCs and that he did not make a substantial contribution - and in fact may have impeded the proceedings - in the case of six of the PRCs he sponsored. In other words, about half of the matters to which Adams devoted himself contributed substantially to the Commission's decision, and half did not. In other matters, the work of Adams was often duplicative of the positions taken by others, particularly CPSD. Accordingly, based upon a review of all of the PRCs and the contribution that Adams made (or did not make), we will exercise our judgment to reduce the hours claimed by Adams by 50%.

Next, we must assess whether the hours claimed for the customer's efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to Commission decisions are reasonable. Adams believes that the total number of hours claimed is reasonable given the scope of this proceeding and the complexity of the issues. With some exceptions, we agree that the hours set forth in the attachments to the compensation request are accurate and reflect an effort by Adams to eliminate time that was unproductive or duplicative.

Finally, in determining compensation, we take into consideration the market rates for similar services from comparably qualified persons.

Since his retirement from the Commission in 1990, Adams has provided forensic investigation and expert witness services on personal injury and property damage claims and in civil litigation involving electrical wires and facilities. He holds a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Heald Engineering College in San Francisco, and has a California electrical contractor's license. In 2000, the Commission awarded Adams intervenor compensation at the rate of $100 per hour for his work from 1998 to 1999 in the investigatory proceeding that led to D.00-01-009. The Commission arrived at the $100 rate through a comparison of the rate paid to Gayatri Schilberg, an economist with JBS Energy, Inc. Since then, the Commission compensated Schilberg's work from 2001 to 2002 at the rate of $130 per hour. (See D.02-11-020.) Since the Commission has increased the rates paid to Schilberg, Adams claims that his rate also should be increased from $100 to $130 per hour. We do not agree. Schilberg has more than 20 years of experience in economic and statistical research and has participated in more than 50 Commission cases on behalf of various consumer organizations. Adams has not demonstrated equivalent growth in experience since his hourly rate of $100 was adopted by the Commission. Until a more persuasive showing is demonstrated, we will limit the increase for Adams. Based on his experience and background, we will increase the rate of compensation for Adams to $110 per hour.

Following the workshops, Adams retained the legal services of Connie Easterly to assist in preparing opening and reply comments in support of the contested rule changes that Adams had sponsored and to prepare comments on the draft decision that was issued. Adams also retained the services of an engineering consultant, Utility Design, Inc. (UDI). The request for award seeks $24,321 for Easterly's attorney fees and $603 for UDI consulting fees.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) questions the claimed compensation for Easterly and UDI, noting that Easterly was not retained by Adams until after the workshops. PG&E states:

"Mr. Adams' time records demonstrate that the spent the vast majority of his time on this Rulemaking prior to ever retaining Mr. Easterly and UDI. Furthermore, Mr. Easterly participated in this Rulemaking as his own representative, proposing the joint trenching rule changes in PRC 63 and 64. UDI also appeared as its own representative in this Rulemaking. It was UDI that proposed PRC 63 and 64 and the November 29, 2002 workshop. Review of the billing records attached as Exhibits B and C to the Adams Request reveals that Mr. Easterly and UDI devoted substantial time to the issues presented in PRC 63 and 64. Because Mr. Easterly and UDI had been proponents of PRC 63 and 64 in this Rulemaking long before they were retained as Mr. Adams' representatives in February 2004, PG&E submits that it would be wholly inappropriate for Mr. Easterly and UDI to obtain compensation as Mr. Adams' representatives regarding these same joint trenching proposals. To award such attorneys fees and consulting fees to Mr. Easterly and UDI would effectively circumvent the procedure for intervenor compensation in Public Utilities Code section 1804 et seq." (PG&E Response, at 2-3.)

Moreover, PG&E states, the claimed contributions of Easterly and UDI to PRC 63 and 64 were not substantial, in that D.05-10-130 rejected both proposals. PG&E also questions the claim for 26 hours of Easterly's time to prepare the request for intervenor compensation, representing some $7,150 in attorneys' fees.

Adams has responded to PG&E's comments, stating that he should be free to retain attorneys and consultants in the same manner that utilities do. However, he does not address the criticism of time claimed for PRCs that the Commission declined to adopt.

We believe that the observations of PG&E as to these claimed costs have merit. Our duty to ratepayers requires that awards ultimately paid by ratepayers are based on fees and costs demonstrated to be reasonable. Unlike most litigants, ratepayers generally have no direct control over the intervenors who purport to represent ratepayer interests, and unlike most advocates, intervenors need not submit their litigation budgets for a client's approval. Here, we find the requested amount on behalf of an attorney and consultants to be excessive in relation to the relatively informal workshop process and work products involved in this rulemaking. In the absence of an issue-by-issue analysis of work performed, we will exercise our judgment by reducing the requested attorney and consultant fees by 50%, the same reduction we have adopted for Adams' hours devoted to this proceeding.

Easterly is a California attorney with more than 17 years of experience in litigation, taxation and general business matters. His practice before the Commission began in 1996, and he has represented participants in the Commission's gas and electric line extension and undergrounding rulemaking proceedings. Adams seeks compensation for Easterly at a rate of $265 per hour for 2004 and $275 per hour for 2005. Adams states that these hourly rates are within the range of hourly attorney rates the utilities reported in the Commission's R.04-10-010 proceeding, which ranged from a low of $205 to a high of $576, depending on experience.

In D.02-11-019, the Commission awarded $210 per hour for Easterly's legal services in the years 2000 and 2001 in the R.00-01-005 undergrounding proceeding. We find that the generalized justification for an increase in that rate is insufficient, and Adams has not shown that the increased rate is comparable to that of other attorneys participating in what has been primarily a workshop proceeding like this one. We will retain the rate of $210 for attorney work performed in this proceeding.

Adams seeks an hourly rate of $175 for the work of expert Roger Poynts, who is the principal civil engineer for UDI-TETRAD Consulting Engineers, Inc., and who advised Adams on underground facilities issues. In D.00-12-005, Poynts was awarded an hourly fee of $145 for work in 1997 and 1998. In
D.02-11-019, this was increased to $160 per hour. Adams has not justified a further increase in this proceeding, given the limited nature of the work performed. We will retain the rate of $160 per hour for work performed in this proceeding. We accept the proposed hourly rate of $150 for expert Jack Deschaine in 2004. Deschaine is director of utility operation for UDI-TETRAD Consulting Engineers, Inc., and his normal billing rate is $160 per hour. Deschaine advised Adams on tree-trimming measures.

The itemized direct expenses submitted by Adams include costs for travel, photocopying and postage and total $6,566. The cost breakdown included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. We find these costs reasonable.