5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

UCAN requests $175,196.30⁸ for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:

	Year	Rate Requested	Hours Billed	Total Fees	Subtotal by Category
Shames	2005	$300	42.2	$ 12,660.00
Shames	2006-2007	$310	53.70	$ 16,647.00
Subtotal					$ 29,307.00
Rosner & Mansfield	2005	$390	150.9	$ 58,851.00
Rosner & Mansfield	2006-2007	$400	209.8	$ 83,920.00
Subtotal					$142,771.00
Fees Subtotal					$172,078.00
Misc. Costs					$ 4,118.30
TOTAL					$175,196.30

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:

5.1. 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.

With one exception, we agree that the total number of hours claimed is reasonable given the scope of this proceeding and the complexity of the issues. We find that the 10.5 hours Mansfield spent on preparing the special index of the evidentiary record was unproductive and we disallow compensation for that work.

We are not persuaded by Cingular's claim that Shames' involvement in the settlement process was as a client of its outside counsel, Rosner & Mansfield, and not as UCAN's attorney or advocate. We find that Shames attended settlement meetings not as a spectator, but as an active participant in UCAN's legal team and an advocate for its positions. Shames brought his unique perspective as a consumer advocate and his intimate factual knowledge of the case to meetings with the Commission staff and Cingular and used his skills as an attorney to formulate settlement strategy and tactics with Rosner & Mansfield. The hours recorded by Shames and Rosner & Mansfield, respectively, do not suggest double billing and appear reasonable overall.

5.2. 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.

UCAN seeks an hourly rate of $300 for Shames' work in 2004-2005 and $310 for work in 2006-2007. We previously approved these rates for Shames in D.06-06-048 and D.07-02-029, respectively, and adopt them here. For Mansfield, UCAN seeks an hourly rate of $390 for work in 2005 and $400 for work in
2006-2007. We previously approved both rates for Mansfield in D.07-02-029 and adopt the rates here as well.

For Rosner, UCAN also seeks hourly rates of $390 for 2005 and $400 for 2006-2007. The Commission's last compensation award to Rosner was for work done in 2002, where D.03-01-070 set rates for Mansfield and Rosner at the same level, $300 per hour. UCAN argues that we should continue to peg Roster's rate to the Mansfield's and we do so, adopting the increases UCAN requests.

5.3. 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.

Cingular has agreed to reimburse over 100,000 customers for ETFs that should not have been imposed by Cingular; in doing so, Cingular will return at least $18 million to customers. Cingular also will pay a $12.14 million penalty to the State. While the penalty does not directly benefit the ratepayer, it does send a message to similarly situated companies that the Commission will not tolerate consumer abuse and will move forcefully against exploitation of ratepayers. In addition, the all-party settlement may serve as a template for restitution plans the Commission may order in the future. We find that UCAN's defense of the Commission's decision and work towards settlement in the second phase of this proceeding has been productive.

5.4. Direct Expenses

The itemized direct expenses submitted by UCAN include costs for travel, photocopying, postage and delivery, and telephone/teleconferencing and total $4,118.30. The cost breakdown included with the request shows the miscellaneous expenses to be commensurate with the work performed. We find these costs reasonable.

⁸ This is the corrected sum. UCAN's request contains an arithmetic error in the calculation of Shames' requested fee for 2005, and under-reports it by $60, resulting in total of $175,136.30.