6. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation
After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the amount of the compensation request is reasonable. In assessing the reasonableness of a claim, the Commission also looks to a party's demonstrated "productivity" in a proceeding including the party's efficiency and reasonableness in terms of cost of the participation.
6.1. Reasonableness of DisabRA's Requested Compensation
DisabRA requests $30,069.12 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:
Work on Proceeding | ||||||||||
Attorney/Staff |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly Rate |
Total | ||||||
Melissa Kasnitz |
2007-2008 |
22.7 |
$390 |
$ 8,853.00 | ||||||
Mary-Lee Kimber |
2007-2008 |
81.8 |
$190 |
$15,542.00 | ||||||
Law Clerks |
2007-2008 |
18.9 |
$100 |
$ 1,890.00 | ||||||
Subtotal: |
$26,285.00 | |||||||||
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request | ||||||||||
Attorney/Staff |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly Rate |
Total | ||||||
Melissa Kasnitz |
2007-2008 |
2.4 |
$195 (50% of $390) |
$ 468.00 | ||||||
Mary-Lee Kimber |
2007-2008 |
20.8 |
$95 (50% of $190) |
$1,976.00 | ||||||
Law Clerks |
2007-2008 |
5.0 |
$50 (50% of $100) |
$ 250.00 | ||||||
Subtotal of Compensation (on NOI and Compensation Request): |
$2,694.00 | |||||||||
Expense Request | ||||||||||
Photocopying |
-- |
$ 1,061.00 | ||||||||
Postage & Delivery |
-- |
$ 6.54 | ||||||||
Telephone & Fax |
-- |
$ 22.58 | ||||||||
Subtotal of Expense: |
$1,090.12 | |||||||||
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.
We first assess whether the hours claimed for the customer's efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to the Commission decision are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution. While DisabRA has substantially contributed to this proceeding and the hours and costs claimed, in general, are reasonable, some of its claims are excessive, unjustified and improper. In general, below are some examples of claimed hours and costs that are not reasonable. Instead they are excessive, illustrate inefficiency and otherwise not justified in the filings of DisabRA. Therefore, as discussed below and detailed in Section 8, DisabRA's claim will be reduced as follows:
1. the total award as it relates to the work on the proceeding will be reduced by 5%;
2. the 1.6 hours (1.1 hours of Kimber's time and 0.50 hour of clerk's time) claimed relating to correcting erroneous NOI filing will be disallowed;
3. the 6.6 hours of clerical work associated with the merits work and the 2.0 hours of clerical work associated with the fee work, will be disallowed;
4. the 2.5 hours travel hours claimed will be disallowed; and
5. $961 of the $1,061.00 total claimed for photocopying, will be disallowed.
DisabRA's claimed hours in general are excessive and not commensurate with the work product. On its nine-page23 comments on LIEE Goals and Objectives of April 27, 2007, DisabRA claimed approximately 17 attorney hours. On its six-page reply comments on LIEE Goals and Objectives of May 8, 2007, DisabRA claimed 13.60 hours of attorney time. On its one-page Comments on LIEE Program Renter Access issues and AB 2104 of June 4, 2007, DisabRA claimed 3.10 hours of attorney time, while its comments expressly state that DisabRA does not provide any substantive responses.
Furthermore, DisabRA claimed almost 20 hours on its 10-page October 16, 2007 comments on KEMA report, which was in addition to numerous hours it claimed for its review when the KEMA report was first issued. Finally, on its five-page comments on the proposed decision, filed on December 11, 2007, DisabRA claimed 14 attorney hours. A large part of the five-page comments consists of references to the proposed decision and cutting and pasting of DisabRA's own prior comments filed in this proceeding.
Finally, DisabRA requests the total of 23.20 attorney hours for intervenor compensation documents. In general, the foregoing claimed hours are not reasonable. Instead the foregoing claimed hours are excessive in comparison to the related work product and illustrate inefficiency that is not otherwise justified in the filings of DisabRA. Therefore, DisabRA's total award as it relates to the intervenor's work on the proceeding will be reduced by 5%.
Work associated with claimant's own errors and related corrective efforts are generally not compensable. DisabRA claims 1.6 hours (1.10 hours of Kimber's time and 0.50 hour of clerk's) for work associated with refilling its NOI to correct its prior NOI filing. Such time claimed by DisabRA's corrective work is not compensable.
DisabRA claims compensation for 6.6 hours of clerical work, such as filing, serving, calendaring, indexing, etc. Such clerical work is built in to the hourly fee structure, and no separate compensation is allowed. Similarly, in the intervenor compensation work category, DisabRA also claims for compensation of approximately 2 hours spent on some clerical tasks (filing, serving, etc.). We disallow this time also.
DisabRA claims 2.50 hours at the full attorney rate for Mary-Lee Kimber's travels to and from the Commission. DisabRA's office is located in Berkeley. Routine commuting is not compensable. We disallow this time also.
We next take into consideration whether the claimed fees are comparable to the market rates paid to advocates and experts having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.
6.1.6.1. Melissa Kasnitz
DisabRA seeks an hourly rate of $390 for Kasnitz for her 2007 and 2008 work in this proceeding. In D.07-06-040, this rate was adopted for Kasnitz's 2007 work and we utilize it here for all her hours claimed.
6.1.6.2. Mary-Lee Kimber
DisabRA seeks an hourly rate of $190 for her 2007 and 2008 work in this proceeding. In D.08-01-033, this rate was adopted for Kimber's 2007 work and we utilize it here for all her hours claimed.
6.1.6.3. Law Clerks
DisabRA seeks an hourly rate of $100 for the 2007 and 2008 work performed by its law clerks in this proceeding. In D.07-06-040, this rate was adopted for law clerks and paralegals' 2007 work and we utilize it here for all of DisabRA's law clerk hours claimed.
DisabRA's expenses of $1,090.12 listed in the summary presented above includes $1,061.00 in copying expense. While other expenses claimed are reasonable in relation to the volume and magnitude of efforts undertaken by DisabRA and were reasonably necessary for DisabRA's efforts in this case, DisabRA's claimed photocopying expense is excessive.
Even at 10 cents per page, the number of pages copied for the claimed amount exceeds ten thousand pages. In addition, in proceedings like this one, in which the vast majority of the documents are filed and served electronically, copying expenses should be minimal, in the $100 range as reflected in other more active intervenors' claims. We therefore disallow $961 of the total claimed photocopying expense and allow only $100 for photocopying expense.
6.2. Reasonableness of Greenlining's Requested Compensation
Greenlining requests $137,475.0024 for its participation in this proceeding as follows:
Work on Proceeding | ||||||||||
Attorney/Staff |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly |
Total | ||||||
Robert Gnaizda |
2007 |
140.5 |
$520 |
$ 73,060.00 | ||||||
Thalia N.C. Gonzales |
2007 & 2008 |
124.50 |
$230 |
$ 28,635.00 | ||||||
Jesse W. Raskin |
2007 & 2008 |
93 |
$190 |
$ 17,670.00 | ||||||
Mark Rutledge |
2007 |
70.75 |
$150 |
$ 10,612.50 | ||||||
Bobak Roshan |
2007 |
21.25 |
$180 |
$ 3,825.00 | ||||||
Farida Ali |
2007 |
8.75 |
$150 |
$ 1,312.50 | ||||||
Subtotal: |
$135,115.00 | |||||||||
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request | ||||||||||
Attorney/Expert |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly |
Total | ||||||
Thalia N.C. Gonzales |
2007 |
6 |
$230 |
$ 1,380.00 | ||||||
Jesse W. Raskin |
2008 |
5 |
$190 |
$ 950.00 | ||||||
Subtotal of Compensation (on NOI and Compensation Request): |
$ 2,330.00 | |||||||||
Expense Request | ||||||||||
Direct Expense |
-- |
$ 100.00 | ||||||||
Postage Costs |
-- |
$ 20.00 | ||||||||
Subtotal of Expense: |
$ 120.00 | |||||||||
Total Requested Compensation |
$137,475.0025 | |||||||||
The issues we consider to determine reasonableness of Greenlining's request are discussed below.
We first assess whether the hours claimed for Greenlining's efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to the Commission decision are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution. While Greenlining has substantially contributed to this proceeding and the hours and costs claimed, in general, are reasonable, some of its claimed hours are excessive, unjustified, and improper. Below are some examples of claimed hours that are not reasonable. Instead they are excessive, illustrate inefficiency, and are not otherwise justified in the filings of Greenlining. Therefore, as discussed below and detailed in Section 8, Greenlining's total award as it relates to the work on the proceeding will be reduced by 10%.
In its Response to Greenlining's request, SCE objected to full compensation and contended that Greenlining's request is "excessive, unreasonable and seek compensation for matters that are beyond the scope of the proceeding, for duplicative efforts, and for recommendations and work that did not substantially contribute to D.07-12-051." SCE suggested Greenlining seeks to be compensated for its "day-to-day operations" and for funding for its other "extraneous outreach, research and community meetings." SCE also contended Greenlining's request is overstated and thus should be reduced.
We agree with SCE in part and disagree in part. In general, we find that Greenlining made a substantial contribution to the proceeding and that Greenlining's request here appears generally supported by its level of participation and commensurate with its substantial contribution to the proceeding. This policy development proceeding necessitated creative brainstorming exercises which would lead to ideas, proposals, and recommendations, being considered but not finally adopted by the Commission for various reasons. Thus, while Greenlining's positions may not have been completely adopted by the Commission, the record of the proceeding shows a clear and full participation that supplemented the necessary discussions which ultimately resulted in D.07-12-051.
However, as pointed out by SCE, we find that Greenlining was not particularly efficient in its efforts in assigning work to its staff. We direct Greenlining to exercise efficiency in assigning work to its staff and maintain and provide clearer records of its efforts in its future requests.
For instance, Greenlining claims in excess of 25 hours of research time. In addition, those claimed hours are attributed to its most senior attorney, Robert Gnaizda, who conducted more than 25 hours of legal research on LIEE program, at the requested rate of $520 an hour while the law clerk/paralegal level staff, Farida Ali, did no legal research but simply attended meetings and discussions. The law clerk/paralegal rate is less than 1/5 of the Gnaizda's rate and would have been more cost effective use of resources for some or all of such research or other efforts claimed in the request. In fact, Ali's claimed 8.75 hours of contribution to this proceeding consisted of handful of internal discussions and meetings with Gnaizda and attendance at one 4.5-hour meeting on October 31, 2007, for which Gnaizda also claims 4.5 hours for his part. These types of entries raise a concern about the efficiency and productivity of Greenlining's activities relating to this proceeding.
In addition, with two seasoned attorneys and four law clerks/paralegal level staff members participating in the proceeding, Greenlining conducted more internal meetings to discuss, strategize, and coordinate their individual efforts and to review each other's drafts of work associated with the proceedings. For instance, many of Greenlining's filings resulted in excessive number of hours claimed in comparison to the related work product as follows:
· On its seven-page initial comments on OIR, Greenling claimed 28.75 attorney hours.
· Reviewing other parties initial OIR comments (totaling approximately 40 pages), Greenlining claimed a total of 21.25 hours.
· On its three-page May 8, 2007 reply comments on LIEE Goals and Objectives of May 8, 2007, Greenling claimed yet another 11.25 hours of attorney time.
· Reviewing March 2007 LIEE Report (totaling approximately 30 pages), Greenlining claimed a total of 11.50 hours.
· On its eight-page Response to Application, Greenlining claimed 28.75 hours of attorney time.
· Greenlining claimed almost 23.25 hours on its thirteen-page comments on KEMA report, which was in addition to numerous hours it claimed for its review when the KEMA report was first issued.
· On its ten-page comments and four-page reply comments on the proposed decision, Greenlining claimed 23.5 attorney hours. A large part of the comments were references to the proposed decision and cutting and pasting of Greenlining's own prior comments filed in this proceeding.
Associated with each of those filings, excessive large number of hours are attributed and claimed for internal discussions and coordination that were necessitated by the large number of Greenlining staff involved in this proceeding.
Related to the issue of inefficiency, four Greenlining professional staff attended same 4½ hour meeting on October 31, 2007 and result was 18 total hours for that meeting attendance, yet there is no explanation in the claim to indicate how the meeting impacted Greenlining's substantial contribution or why all the staff had to attend.
There are also claims that are ambiguous and not justified such as Jesse Raskin's October 17, 2007 entry "On that date, Jesse Raskin met Raskin." In addition, there are entries and claims for over 15 hours of various meetings about LIEE with non-parties but there is no showing that such meetings were necessary for Greenlining to undertake in order for Greenling to make its substantial contribution to this proceeding. There is no evidence of those meetings' contribution to this proceeding, as documented by Greenlining's claim. Moreover, as SCE correctly points out in its Response to Greenlining's claims, as a general rule, hours claimed for community meetings participation are not compensable.26 Greenlining did not respond to SCE's objections regarding those community meeting hours.
Greenlining's chosen method of participation was inefficient and not cost effective. Moreover, Greenlining's record keeping must be significantly improved. Finally, the records of internal and community meetings do not clearly indicate the necessary descriptions to demonstrate how such meetings actually contributed to the proceeding. In turn, while it can be generally inferred what those internal, community outreach or other meetings yielded, it is far better practice and we direct that Greenlining in the future better document for its activities to clearly illustrate the connection between its efforts and the proceeding's scope.
Finally, some of the time claimed by Greenlining staff for NOI or request preparation was not reduced, as required, by 50%; as such, Greenlining is directed to provide improved documentation to ensure compensation in the future claims.
We next take into consideration whether the claimed hourly rates by Greenlining are comparable to the market rates paid to advocates and experts having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.
6.2.2.1. Robert Gnaizda, General Counsel and Policy Director
Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $520 for Gnaizda for his 2007 work in this proceeding. In D.07-11-013, this rate was adopted for Gnaizda's 2007 work and we utilize it here for all his hours claimed.
6.2.2.2. Thalia N.C. Gonzalez, Senior Counsel
Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $230 for Gonzalez for her work in this proceeding, the majority of which occurred in 2007. In D.08-05-015, we adopted her 2007 hourly rate of $195. Greenlining has not shown any evidence that justifies such an increase in her hourly rate since D.08-05-015. Thus, we utilize the previously adopted 2007 hourly rate of $195 for Gonzalez here for all her hours claimed.
6.2.2.3. Jesse Raskin, Legal Counsel
Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $190 for Raskin for his work in this proceeding, the majority of which occurred in 2007. While Greenlining sought an hourly rate for Raskin's 2007 work consistent with a level for a new attorney, the records of the State Bar show that Raskin did not become a licensed member of the California State Bar until December 2007 and was performing duties until that time in the capacity comparable to law clerk/paralegal. In D.08-05-015, we adopted a 2007 hourly rate of $100 for Raskin, consistent with the law clerk/paralegal rates. Greenlining has not shown any evidence that justifies an increase in Raskin's hourly rate since D.08-05-015. Thus, we utilize the previously adopted 2007 hourly rate of $100 for Raskin here for all his hours claimed.
6.2.2.4. Mark Rutledge, Advocacy Fellow
Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $150 for Rutledge for his 2007 work in this proceeding. D.07-11-013 adopted a 2007 hourly rate of $110. Greenlining has not shown any evidence that justifies an increase in Rutledge's hourly rate since D.07-11-013. Thus, we utilize the previously adopted 2007 hourly rate of $110 for Rutledge here for all his hours claimed.
6.2.2.5. Bobak Roshan, Legal Associate
Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $180 for Roshan for his 2007 work in this proceeding. While Greenlining sought attorney hourly rate for Roshan's 2007 work, the records of the State Bar show that Roshan did not become a licensed member of the California State Bar until December 2008 and until that time was performing duties comparable to a law clerk/paralegal. We adopt a 2007 hourly rate of $110 for Roshan, consistent with D.08-12-057 that adopted this rate for Roshan's work in 2007.
6.2.2.6. Farida Ali
Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of $150 for Ali for her 2007 work in this proceeding. While Greenlining claims that Ali is an Advocacy Fellow at Mabuhay Alliance at the present time and had received a degree from Columbia University sometime in 2007 with double major in Asian American Studies and Comparative Ethnic Studies, its request is unclear as to the exact capacity in which she participated in this proceeding. Based on her experience, educational background, and tasks she performed in this proceeding, as set forth in the Greenlining's request which appear comparable to that of law clerk/paralegal, we adopt a 2007 hourly rate of $100, consistent with the law clerk/paralegal rates adopted here for Raskin and Roshan.
The miscellaneous expenses of $120 listed in the summary presented above are not reasonable. Of the $120, $100 is claimed generally as "Direct Expense." Without further explanation, we cannot discern whether such expense is compensable and was reasonably necessary expense. Accordingly, $100 total claimed for "Direct Expense" will be disallowed for insufficient justification.
6.3. Reasonableness of A W.I.S.H.'s Requested Compensation
A W.I.S.H. requests $155,560.09 for its participation in this proceeding, as follows:
Work on Proceeding | ||||||
Attorney/Staff |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly |
Total | ||
Susan E. Brown |
2007 |
220.28 |
$400 |
$ 88,112.00 | ||
Michael Karp |
2007 |
180.75 |
$290 |
$ 52,417.50 | ||
Chuck Eberdt |
2007 |
22.50 |
$150 |
$ 3,375.00 | ||
Subtotal: |
$143,904.50 | |||||
Preparation of NOI and Compensation Request | ||||||
Attorney/Expert |
Year |
Hours |
Hourly |
Total | ||
Susan Brown |
2007 |
18.25 |
$400 |
$ 7,300.0027 | ||
Michel Karp |
2007 |
9.5 |
$290 |
$ 2,755.00 (calculated @50%) | ||
Subtotal of Compensation (on NOI and Compensation Request): |
$ 10,055.00 | |||||
Expense Request | ||||||
Copying |
-- |
$ 147.83 | ||||
Parking |
-- |
$ 65.00 | ||||
Supplies |
-- |
$ 140.01 | ||||
Travel |
-- |
$ 1,248.20 | ||||
Subtotal of Expense: |
$ 1,601.04 | |||||
Total Requested Compensation |
$ 155,560.54 | |||||
The issues we consider to determine reasonableness of A W.I.S.H.'s request are discussed below.
We first assess whether the hours claimed for A W.I.S.H.'s efforts that resulted in substantial contributions to Commission decision are reasonable by determining to what degree the hours and costs are related to the work performed and necessary for the substantial contribution. While A W.I.S.H. has substantially contributed to this proceeding and the hours claimed, in general, are reasonable, some of its claimed hours and claims are excessive, unjustified, and improper. Below are some examples of claimed hours that are not reasonable. Instead these claimed hours and costs are excessive, illustrate inefficiency and are not otherwise justified in the filings of A W.I.S.H. Therefore, as discussed below and detailed in Section 8, A W.I.S.H.'s award will be reduced as follows:
1. Total award will be reduced by 10% as to its work on the proceeding;
2. 1.75 hours of Brown's time for NOI correction work is disallowed; and
3. 4 hours of Brown's commute time (at half rate) is disallowed.
6.3.2. A W.I.S.H.'s Claimed Hours are Excessive and/or Lack Adequate Justification
SCE filed a Response to A W.I.S.H.'s request for intervenor compensation and objected to full compensation and contended that A W.I.S.H.'s request is "excessive, unreasonable and seeking for matters that are beyond the scope of the proceeding, for duplicative efforts, and for recommendations and work that did not substantially contribute to D.07-12-051." SCE suggested A W.I.S.H. seeks to be compensated for its "day-to-day operations" and for funding for its other "extraneous outreach, research and community meetings." SCE also contended A W.I.S.H.'s request is overstated and thus should be reduced.
We agree with SCE in part and disagree with SCE in others, as discussed below. In general, we find that A W.I.S.H. made a substantial contribution to the proceeding and that its request here appears generally supported by its level of participation and contribution to the proceeding here. A W.I.S.H.'s filings were quite thorough, helpful and generally commensurate with the amount of time claimed and work products. Because this proceeding was one of policy development and largely based on written record, A W.I.S.H.'s filings appropriately aided the creative brainstorming exercises while providing ideas, proposals, and recommendations for deliberation that were not ultimately adopted by the Commission for various reasons. Thus, while A W.I.S.H.'s positions may not have been completely adopted by the Commission, the record of the proceeding shows a clear and full participation that effectively complimented the necessary discussion which ultimately resulted in D.07-12-051.
However, as pointed out by SCE, we find that A W.I.S.H. may not have been particularly efficient in its efforts nor did A W.I.S.H. document its efforts adequately. For instance, A W.I.S.H.'s claim lacks documentation and justifications for claims relating to its hours claimed associated with activities other than its filings. Approximately 275 claimed hours involve internal and external contacts and meetings and for many we cannot discern from the entries how those activities were related to and necessary for A W.I.S.H.'s contributions to D.07-12-051.
Many entries simply note telephone communications with individuals who are not parties to the proceeding and/or whose affiliation with a party is not specified (e.g., telephone communications with Burke, Parker, Redton, Kanomata, O'Drain, Jiminenez, Shakpor; Rathswohl; Louise Perez; Kofasun; Yamagata, Yuliya, Scheffer, Savarte, Sarvale, Wimbley, Surrate, O'Bannon, Osmer, etc.). Moreover, many of those entries lack clear description of the purpose of those communications as being necessary for A W.I.S.H.'s contribution to this proceeding, leaving us in a precarious position to try and infer how those activities may relate to the proceeding and A W.I.S.H.'s contribution.
Similarly, A W.I.S.H. held and/or attended frequent meetings and communications with various organizations. Some of these meetings may or may not be "related to and necessary" for, A W.I.S.H.'s contributions. Not every discussion, meeting and conversation where LIEE issues come up or relating to LIEE is necessarily related to and necessary for contribution to this proceeding and therefore compensable. In fact, if these meetings were necessary for its contribution, the filings should evidence the connection between these meetings, discussions, or communications. However, the Decision and A W.I.S.H.'s filings do not show that linkage, either. There is no evidence in the record of how those meetings' contributed to this proceeding, as documented by A W.I.S.H.'s claim (e.g., Low-Income Oversight Board meetings, San Carlos meeting with Bay Area Poverty Resource Council, Meeting with SF Foundation, etc.).
Moreover, as SCE correctly points out in its Response to A W.I.S.H.'s claim, as a general rule, hours claimed for community meetings participation are not compensable, and A W.I.S.H.'s explanation, in its Reply to Edison's response to the Request, that "the meetings that A W.I.S.H. organized were necessary ... to avoid duplication and coordinate efforts with the network of community service providers and other parties" is conclusory and is not persuasive, without further justification. These organizations were not parties to the proceeding and nothing in the record indicates how those meetings contributed specifically to this proceeding.
In addition, A W.I.S.H. claimed numerous hours for several meetings with Consumer Services and Information Division (CSID). We are not persuaded that meetings with CPUC staff were necessary for A W.I.S.H.'s contribution to this proceeding and also wonder whether A W.I.S.H.'s efforts unnecessarily duplicated efforts of the CPUC's staff. A W.I.S.H.'s entries do not explain one way or other.
Many of A W.I.S.H.'s entries in the timesheets are devoid of necessary descriptions, and many were also erroneous, as illustrated below. Moreover, parties do not revise, prepare or review scoping rulings, as set forth in A W.I.S.H.'s claim, yet A W.I.S.H. claims for such activities, as illustrated below:
· 12/4, "conference call" - no participants or subject noted.
· 4/4, "revise scoping memo"
· 4/11, call from Rand Burke-coordination - no participants or subject noted
· 3/30, preparation of scoping ruling
· 3/16, planning call w/Brown
· 10/3, error in timesheet: 1.1+.1=1.2 not 2.25 - extra 1.05 hrs.
· 12/4, conference call - no participants or subject noted
· 12/14, calls - no subject noted
· 3/30, prep. of scoping ruling
· 5/1, "final review of A W.I.S.H comments for scoping memo" - comments were already filed as of 4/27/07
As discussed above, A W.I.S.H.'s record keeping must be significantly improved. The records of internal and community communications and meetings do not clearly indicate the necessary descriptions to demonstrate how such meetings actually relate to and contributed to the proceeding. In turn, while it can be generally inferred what those internal, community outreach or other meetings yielded, it is far better practice and we direct that A W.I.S.H. in the future claims, provide better document for its activities to clearly illustrate the connection between its efforts and the proceeding's scope.
In general, the foregoing are examples of claimed hours that are not reasonable. Instead the foregoing claimed hours are excessive, illustrate inefficiency and are not otherwise justified in the filings of A W.I.S.H. All these facts and issues considered, we conclude that at least a part of the time claimed by A W.I.S.H. is unrelated to its contributions to D.07-12-051, was unnecessary for its contributions to D.07-12-051, and was unproductive. Because the costs of a customer's participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through its participation, A W.I.S.H.'s award should be reduced by 10% as to its work on the proceeding, as illustrated in Section 8 below.
Work associated with claimant's own errors and related corrective efforts are generally not compensable. A W.I.S.H. had to correct its NOI by filing an amendment and requests 1.75 hours of Brown's time for that task. Although A W.I.S.H is fairly new to Commission, their counsel is quite experienced thus time to correct work should not be compensable. This amount is disallowed.
Generally, routine commuting is not compensable. A W.I.S.H. claims hours for its routine commuting for trips between Mill Valley, Marin County, and San Francisco (4 hours of Brown's time at ½ rate). This amount is disallowed.
Travel and intervenor's compensation time should clearly be shown as full time (charged at half rate). The claim is unclear in its present form and we are unable to discern whether the intervenor properly applied the "half-time" or not.
We next take into consideration whether the claimed hourly rates by A W.I.S.H. are comparable to the market rates paid to advocates and experts having comparable training and experience and offering similar services.
6.3.6.1. Susan Brown, Attorney
A W.I.S.H. seeks an hourly rate of $400 for Brown for her 2007 work in this proceeding, majority of which occurred in 2007. In D.08-05-015, this rate was adopted for Brown's 2007 work and we utilize it here for all her hours claimed.
6.3.6.2. Michael Karp, Founder and CEO of A W.I.S.H.
A W.I.S.H. seeks an hourly rate of $290 for Karp for his work in this proceeding, majority of which occurred in 2007. In D.08-05-015, we adopted his 2007 hourly rate of $200. A W.I.S.H. has not shown any evidence that justifies an increase in his hourly rate since D.08-05-015. Thus, we utilize the previously adopted 2007 hourly rate of $200 for Karp here for all his hours claimed.
6.3.6.3. Chuck Eberdt, Expert
A W.I.S.H. seeks an hourly rate of $150 for Eberdt for his 2007 work in this proceeding, majority of which occurred in 2007. In D.08-05-015, this rate was adopted for Eberdt's 2007 work and we utilize it here for all his hours claimed.
A W.I.S.H.'s expenses of $1,601.04 listed in the summary presented above includes parking and travel claims. Without further explanation, we can not discern whether such expense is compensable and was a reasonably necessary expense. Generally, routine travel claims including parking expenses are not compensable. A W.I.S.H. claims $65 for parking and $1,601.04 in travel which includes:
1. 5/16 - Karp trip to and from Seattle to San Francisco for meeting with Commissioner Grueneich ($259.80 airfare and $421.80 in three nights hotel stay);
2. 6/5 - Karp trip to and from Seattle to San Francisco for "service provider mtg.," ($532.20 airfare); and
3. 8/26 & 10/12 - Brown commuting expense ($14.40 train fare & $20 taxi fare).
Both the parking claim and travel claim are improper because they are routine commuting expenses for which we do not generally provide compensation. There is nothing in the record to show that these claims are anything other than routine commuting expense. In addition, there is nothing in the record which suggests that Karp was a unique expert who aided the proceeding by his personal presence in San Francisco on the two above occasions he claims travel expense. Lastly, Karp's May 16th travel claim is attributed to one meeting with the Commissioner with three nights' hotel stay, which suggests that the real purpose of that trip was something other than that one meeting with the Commissioner. For all those reasons, the parking and travel claims are disallowed.
23 Only pages with substantive text are counted. Parts required for compliance with Rules on formal filing (such as title page, certificate of service, etc.) are not counted.
24 Greenlining's correct total claim based on its claimed merit work ($135,115) and fee work ($2,330) hours plus expense ($120) is $137,565.
25 Id.
26 See D.05-08-028 at 20; D.05-01-007 at 17-18 and 32.
27 The A W.I.S.H. request does not reduce by 50% the hourly rate for Brown as required by the Commission for time spent preparing compensation requests.
