STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
October 29, 2003
TO PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE COMMISSION'S INTERVENOR PROGRAM
The Commission recently directed its Executive Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge to "develop a comprehensive process for the Commission to annually set rates for intervenor attorney, expert, and paralegal fees...." (Relevant portions of Decision (D.) 03-10-062 are attached. A companion decision, D.03-10-061, contains the same direction.) By this letter, we invite your comments and suggestions to begin our development of this annual process.
The statutory context is provided by Public Utilities Code Sections 1801-1812, which govern the Commission's intervenor compensation program. Section 1806 contains standards for rates used to compute compensation: "The computation...shall take into consideration the market rates paid to persons of comparable training and experience who offer similar services. The compensation awarded may not, in any case, exceed the comparable market rate for services paid by the commission or the public utility, whichever is greater, to persons of comparable training and experience who are offering similar services."
As you may know, under Section 1806, the Commission currently sets attorney and paralegal hourly rates on the basis of (1) publicly available survey data collected by the State Bar and (2) information provided by the compensation claimant. Following the approach taken in the survey, the Commission currently groups attorneys and paralegals based on the length of their relevant experience. The Commission currently recognizes outstanding performance (e.g., exceptional efficiency or results) by applying a multiplier to the hourly rate. The Commission currently updates adopted hourly rates on request by the compensation claimant. The Commission's process for setting expert hourly rates is similar; however, there is no survey analogous to the State Bar survey for lawyers and paralegals.
The following questions are prompted by D.03-10-062 and by the Commission's current process, as described above. You may address the questions directly or simply consider them in formulating your comments or suggestions:
1. What annual process do you recommend for setting hourly rates? Please describe your recommendation in detail, including but not limited to the timing of the process, public participation in the process, and the treatment of intervenors not participating in the process (e.g., new intervenors).
2. How would the annual process you recommend meet (1) the standards of Section 1806, and (2) the goals of D.03-10-062, specifically, "promote fairness in awards, both in absolute and relative terms" and "increase administrative efficiency [so that intervenors are paid] on a more expedited basis"?
3. Consistent with Section 1806, what information should the Commission accept or require in setting hourly rates?
On or before Friday, November 17, please send your opening response by Internet to the Initial Distribution List and to the following persons at the Commission. Please include in your response the e-mail address at which you wish to receive other responses to this letter:
Harriett Burt hjb@cpuc.ca.gov
Michelle Cooke mlc@cpuc.ca.gov
Steven Kotz kot@cpuc.ca.gov
We will provide an opportunity for persons to respond to the comments or suggestions in the opening comments. We plan to analyze these responses and to propose a process for possible adoption by the Commission. We hope to publish the proposal in a draft resolution before the end of this year. The draft resolution would be subject to further public review and comment.
William Ahern Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Executive Director Administrative Law Judge
cc: Commissioners
Initial Distribution List
ATTACHMENT
Extract from Decision 03-10-062, mimeo, pp. 11-12
We wish to avoid repetition or continuation of problem-solving arising from claims of inconsistent awards of hourly rates and fees as among intervenors, as well as to reduce the amount of time consumed in individual intervenor fee requests on the issues of appropriate rate and fee levels.
Therefore, we direct the Executive Director and Chief Administrative Law Judge to develop a comprehensive process for the Commission to annually set rates for intervenor attorney, expert, and paralegal fees pursuant to Section 1806. The rates could be set on a peer group basis, individual intervenor basis, or combination of the two approaches. We envision the proposed fees, upon adoption, to be applied in individual proceedings unless parties to the proceeding make a convincing case for doing otherwise based on unique circumstances. One possible procedural approach would utilize public workshops to develop consensus on appropriate rates, and submit such rates to the Commission by formal resolution for ratification. The twin goals of this exercise are (1) to promote fairness in awards, both in absolute and relative terms, and (2) to increase the administrative efficiency in making these awards, allowing intervenors to actually receive payment for their services to the Commission and utility consumers on a more expedited basis.
************ APPEARANCES ************ |
Francis S. Ferraro |
Betty Jo Toccoli |
Ann H. Kim |
Vicki L. Thompson |
Robert Finkelstein |
