V. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.

TURN requests $510,479 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

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:

A. Hours and Costs Related to and Necessary for Substantial Contribution

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.

TURN documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys and experts, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. The overall number of hours is very large, in particular the number of hours for experts Loube and Kennedy. TURN states it relied heavily upon these two expert witnesses to assist with model analysis and critique. TURN describes the time-consuming nature of its model analysis, including multiple runs of the VzCost model. The hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim for total hours.

B. Market Rate Standard

We next take into consideration whether the claimed fees and costs are comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

1. Regina Costa

TURN seeks an hourly rate of $160 for work performed by expert Costa in 2000, $200 for 2002, $215 for 2003, and $230 for 2004 and 2005. We previously approved these rates for Costa10 and find them reasonable.

2. Christine Mailloux

TURN requests an hourly rate of $275 for work attorney Mailloux performed in 2002, $300 for 2003, and $325 for 2004 and 2005. We previously approved these same rates11 and adopt them here.12 For the limited hours included for 2006 work, TURN requests the same rate as for 2005. We adopt all of the rates requested for Mailloux.

3. Robert Finkelstein

TURN requests an hourly rate of $395 for attorney Finkelstein's work performed in 2004 and 2005. We previously approved this rate in D.06-07-018 for both years and adopt it here. For the limited hours included for 2006 work, TURN requests the 2005 rate and we find it reasonable.

4. Robert Loube

TURN requests an hourly rate of $170 for expert Loube for work performed in 2003-2005. TURN states that this is the same rate Loube billed TURN for his work and that the rate is low given his qualifications.

Loube received a Ph.D. in Economics in 1983. He has been employed in the field of utility regulatory and economic analysis since then, including time with Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, and the FCC. In 2001, Loube became the Director of Economic Research for the consulting firm of Rhoads & Sinon. He has presented expert testimony before many state and federal regulatory bodies. His qualifications compare favorably with those of Terry Murray, a telecommunications expert for whom the Commission found a $350 hourly rate reasonable for work performed in 2005.13 In D.05-11-031, we set the range of rates for experts for work performed in 2005 at $110-$360/hour. In view of the above, we find the hourly rate of $170 for Loube's work in 2003-2005 to be reasonable and adopt it here.

5. Scott Kennedy

TURN requests an hourly rate of $125 for expert Kennedy for work performed in 2003-2005. This is the same rate Kennedy billed TURN.

Kennedy received a B.S. in Economics in 1986 and a Master's degree in Urban and Environmental Policy in 1994. He joined the Gabel Communications firm in 1994 and is currently a senior telecommunications specialist with that firm. He previously worked on the development and evaluation of cost models in the telecommunications industry. His clients have included public utility commissions and independent consumer groups such as TURN. His qualifications compare favorably with those of Scott Cratty, an expert witness awarded an hourly rate of $210 for work performed in 2005.14

The $125 hourly rate sought here for Kennedy is at the lower end of the range the Commission found reasonable in D.05-11-031, and we find it reasonable here for his work performed in 2003-2005.

6. Matthew Saltzer

TURN requests an hourly rate of $85 for expert Saltzer for work performed in 2003-2005. Saltzer is a computer specialist and provided support for Loube. This is the same rate Rhoads & Sinon billed TURN.

Saltzer has been a computer specialist for approximately ten years and has worked as a data analyst for Rhoads & Sinon since 2003. Saltzer assisted in analyzing data in the Verizon cost model. His qualifications compare favorably with paralegals and other support personnel for whom the Commission has found reasonable hourly rates in the $75 to $125 range. We find the hourly rate of $85 for Saltzer's work in 2003-2005 to be reasonable.

C. Productivity

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 its participation. This showing assists us in determining the overall reasonableness of the request.

TURN states it took a consistent and aggressive position that the price of UNEs is an important consumer issue. Residential telephone subscribers have a direct interest in ensuring that costs are set appropriately in this proceeding.

Verizon's proposal for a 2-wire loop rate was $33.19 while TURN's proposal was $7.62. TURN's proposal is higher than the JCs' $5.12 proposal and served as a balance to help the Commission adopt its $13.94 average loop rate. TURN has played a crucial and consistent role in this proceeding, and its absence in this phase would have been detrimental to the Commission's decisionmaking process. As with other UNE pricing cases, the difficulty in calculating concrete, monetary benefits is difficult; however, TURN's participation in this proceeding was sufficiently productive to warrant an award of intervenor compensation for all reasonable hours and expenses.

D. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by TURN include $7,561.92 in costs for travel, photocopying, postage, telephone/fax, and messenger services. The cost breakdown included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. We find these costs reasonable.

10 See, D.01-08-011 for the 2000 rate; D.03-06-010 (in Rulemaking (R.) 93-04-003-HFPL phase), p. 10 for the 2002 rate; D.04-12-054 (in R.00-02-004), p. 30 for the 2003 and 2004 rates; and D.05-11-031 for the 2005 rate.

11 TURN apparently inadvertently substituted Costa's name for Mailloux in this section of its filing.

12 See, D.03-06-010 (in R.93-04-003-HFPL phase), p. 12 for the 2002 rate; D.04-12-054 (in R.00-02-004), p. 29 for the 2003 and 2004 rates; and D.05-11-031 for the 2005 rate.

13 D.06-09-011.

14 Id.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page