5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

In general, the components of a request must constitute reasonable fees and costs of the customer's preparation for and participation in a proceeding that resulted in a substantial contribution. We summarize each claim below and then discuss the issues we consider to determine reasonableness.

Greenlining: Greenlining requests $106,488.95 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

Attorney and Advocate Fees	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Robert Gnaizda	2006	168.37	$505.00	$85,026.85
Chris Vaeth	2006	41.25	$180.00	$ 7,425.00
Samuel Kang	2006	21	$180.00	$3,780.00

Subtotal: $96,231.85

Expert	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Michael Phillips	2006	24.8	$380.00	$9,424.00
John Gamboa	2006	1.90	$380.00	$ 722.00

Subtotal: $ 10,146.00

Direct Expenses	Total
Photocopying (945@ .10 per copy)	$ 94.50
Postage costs (overnight services)	$ 16.60

Subtotal: $ 111.10

TOTAL: $106,488.95

CFC: CFC requests $70,619.21 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

Attorney & Clerical Fees	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2006	182.5	$350.00	$63,875.00
Clerical support	2006	8.6	$ 75.00	$ 645.00

Compensation @ 1/2 Rate	Year	Hours	Rate	Total
Alexis Wodtke	2006	34.1	$175.00	$ 5,967.50
Clerical support	2006	1.3	$ 37.50	$ 48.75

Subtotal: 70,536.25

Direct Expenses	Total
Printing & Postage	$ 82.96

TOTAL: $ 70,619.21

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

We first assess whether the hours claimed for customer 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.

Greenlining: Greenlining documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours for Gnaizda, Vaeth, Kang, Phillips, and Gamboa, accompanied by a brief description of each activity recorded.

We adjust the request to remove time spent on work by Gnaizda (8.1 hours), Vaeth (10 hours), and Kang (1.25 hours) related to seeking discovery from the utilities on matters unrelated to the subject of this rulemaking, to the subsequent motion to compel that discovery, and to correspondence to the ALJ regarding the standards Greenlining believes the Commission should use in calculating intervenor compensation.

We also adjust Vaeth's hours to remove time (3 hours) devoted to the drafting and issuance of a press release, which is separate public relations matter. Vaeth's claim for time spent on compensation-related matters (2 hours) is allowed at half of his approved rate rather than full rate. (This is Greenlining's only compensation-related request.)

CFC: CFC documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of the hours for its attorney, Wodtke, for professional fees and for clerical work. We adjust CFC's claim to remove all separately designated clerical hours (8.6 hours at $75 per hour and 1.3 hours for compensation-related work at one-half of that rate), as we consider routine administrative tasks to be overhead which should be captured in an attorney's hourly rates, consistent with our standard practice.⁴ For the same reasons, we reduce CFC's recorded hours (full rate) to remove time spend on preparation of a table of contents and certificates of service (1.4 hours).

Finally, we adjust the 34.1 hours CFC claims for compensation-related work. First we remove 0.9 hours spent on clerical tasks, including preparation of verification and certificates of service; again, this overhead should be subsumed in professional fees. We find that the remaining 33.2 hours is excessive for preparation of the compensation related pleadings, and reduce the time by approximately one-third to 20 hours. In D.06-05-037, for example, we reduced the time claimed by Local Power for such work in R.03-10-003, which concerned implementation of provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 117 to permit local governments to purchase energy on behalf of local customers acting as "community choice aggregators." Local Power spent 40 hours on a request for compensation, while The Utility Reform Network claimed only 6.5 hours for all compensation-related work. While it is always difficult to compare and contrast the complexity of one proceeding with another, we do not see why this rulemaking should have required as much time for the preparation of compensation-related pleadings as CFC seeks. Though we appreciate that this intervenor compensation request is the first that CFC has filed with the Commission, lack of familiarity with Commission rules and practices does not warrant an increase in ratepayer funding. We expect greater efficiency in the future.

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.

Greenlining: Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $505 per hour for work performed by Gnaizda in 2006. We previously approved this rate in D.06-11-009 and adopt it here. We also adopt the rate previously approved for Gamboa for 2006 -- $370 per hour, adopted by D.06-11-009 - rather than the $380 that Greenlining requests. Likewise, we adopt the rate of $345 for Phillips' work in 2006, rather than the $380 requested by Greenlining, since we previously approved that rate in D.07-05-050, as corrected by D.07-06-020. Greenlining may seek a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and other adjustments for work performed in 2007, consistent with the guidance provided in D.07-01-009.⁵ Because the last award to Vaeth was for work performed in 2005 ($150 per hour, adopted by D.06-09-008), we increase that rate by 3% and adopt a new rate of $155 for 2006, consistent with D.07-01-009. This is lower than the $180 per hour that Greenlining seeks; Greenlining may seek a COLA for work Vaeth performs in 2007, consistent with the guidance provided in D.07-01-009. Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $180 for 2006 for Kang, its legal intern. D.06-10-013 adopted a rate of $110 for Kang's paralegal work in 2005 and so, consistent with D.07-01-009, we apply a 3% COLA to that rate and adopt a new rate of $115 for 2006.

CFC: CFC seeks an hourly rate of $350 per hour for work performed by Wodtke in 2006. Since previously we have not set hourly rates for Wodtke (or any other CFC representative), we turn to the guidelines established by D.05-11-031 and D.07-01-009. The earlier decision established an hourly rate range ($270-$490) for 2005 for an attorney with 13+ years of practice, such as Wodtke; D.07-01-009 authorized, for 2006, a 3% COLA to the 2005 rate, rounded to the nearest $5.00.

CFC reports that Wodtke has nearly 20 years of experience in utility regulation and an additional five years experience in civil litigation. Her resume, Exhibit B to the request, does not state when Wodtke was admitted to the bar, but reports her work history from 1978 to the present. Wodtke was employed in state government in Iowa through 1995, first as an attorney and then a hearing officer for the Iowa Commerce Commission (1978-1981) and thereafter as an attorney for the Iowa Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Advocate (1981-1995). Beginning in 1996, she worked as an attorney in California for Sprint Communications, L.P. (approximately six months in 1996-1997), for Alcantar & Elsesser L.P. (1997-1999), and since March 2006 for CFC. Her resume indicates a hiatus of about 5-½ years from 1999-2006.

In assessing the point within a range to fix an attorney's hourly rate, the Commission looks at the rates assigned to others with comparable experience. In D.07-06-011 the Commission adopted rates for Gregg Wheatland, who was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1976 and has been practicing law before California agencies for nearly 30 years. Wheatland's experience includes service as Staff Counsel and Assistant Chief ALJ at the Commission, Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Francisco, and more recently, representation of clients before the Commission and other regulatory agencies. Wheatland's rate for work performed in 2005 was $335, and for 2006, $345. D.07-06-011 declines to set Wheatland's rate at the higher end of the range because he is new to the Commission as an intervenor attorney and therefore, the Commission has had little opportunity to observe his productivity and expertise in that capacity.

Wodtke has been practicing law nearly as long as Wheatland but her regulatory experience as a whole (about 20 years versus almost 30) and in particular her experience with utility regulation in California (about three years versus almost 30), is significantly less extensive. For these reasons it is reasonable to set her rate for work performed in 2006 lower than Wheatland's rate of $345 but above $280, which is the starting point for the range as adjusted by the 2006 COLA. We adopt an initial rate for Wodtke of $300 an hour for work performed in 2006.

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

In a rulemaking of this nature, quantification of ratepayer benefits is exceedingly difficult. The ultimate benefit to ratepayers is the elimination of harm and thus the assurance that environmentally sensitive public utility services will be provided at reasonable rates and under reasonable conditions of service. Certainly, if compensation to utility employees is reasonable and if a utility does not use ratepayer revenues to subsidize affiliate activities or to command an unfair market position, the potential for harm is reduced. Thus, we find that the efforts of Greenlining and CFC have been productive.

D. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by Greenlining consist of $111.10 for photocopying and postage. CFC includes the same costs, for a total of $82.96. We find these costs reasonable.

⁴ See e.g., D.06-09-011, 2006 Cal. PUC LEXIS 315, * 33; D.99-11-006, 1999 Cal. PUC LEXIS 657, *30.

⁵ D.07-01-009 adopted the following measures relating to the hourly rates paid to intervenor representatives:

· A 3% COLA for work performed in calendar year 2006.

· An additional 3% COLA for work performed in 2007.

· Beginning with 2007 work, establishes three rate ranges for experts based on levels of experience, similar to the five levels already established for attorneys.

· Beginning with 2007 work, allows individual intervenor representatives up to two annual 5% "step increases" within each experience level; the step increases may not result in a rate that exceeds the maximum rate for that level.

Beginning with 2007 work, an intervenor representative with a rate last authorized at least four years prior to the pending request may seek a new rate as if that individual were new to Commission proceedings.