4. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

UDI requests compensation in the amount of $39,399 as follows:

Expert's Fees

Roger L. Poynts, P.E. (33.5 hours at $165/hour) = $ 5,527.50

Walter Antonio, Jr. ( 5.0 hours at $125/hour) = $ 625.00

Attorney's Fees

Connie D. Easterly (185.9 hours at $175/hour) = $32,532.50

Paralegal/Administrative Staff

Additional Costs

Courier Charges = $ 64.00

4.1 Hours Claimed

UDI documented the claimed hours by presenting a daily breakdown of hours for Poynts, Antonio, Jr., and Easterly. A breakdown of the 13 hours claimed, for paralegal and administrative staff is also provided. For all hours claimed, detailed information is provided regarding the tasks performed. The hourly breakdown presented by UDI supports its claim for total hours. The hours spent on the identified tasks appear reasonable.

We note that Easterly's time spent working on the compensation request is billed at the full hourly rate for work on September 7, 8, and 9, 1999. In D.98-04-059, we reaffirmed our conclusion that compensation requests are essentially bills for services and do not require an attorney's skill to prepare. Parties will be compensated for an attorney's time in preparing a request for compensation at half the attorney's hourly rate. (Id., p. 51.) Accordingly, we reduce the amount of the award to reflect payment at half Easterly's hourly rate for 26 hours on September 7, 8, and 9, 1999. We have considered the reasonableness of the amount of hours spent on this task and recognize that the number of hours spent is high. In light of the fact that UDI participated over the course of a number of years in several proceedings on related issues, we recognize that it may have been necessary to spend time allocating hours between cases. We appreciate UDI's effort at clearly segregating the hours spent on this proceeding, and we conclude the hours spent in preparing the request were well spent.

We make one other minor adjustment to the award to reflect a reduction in hourly rate for travel time. UDI has claimed Easterly's full hourly rate for four hours of travel to the Commission on August 18, 1999, to obtain documents from Central Files. We have previously directed that travel time shall be billed at one-half of the hourly rate. (See D.98-04-059, p. 51.) UDI does not break down the four hours between travel and activities at the Commission, and it is not possible to determine if the task could have been more efficiently performed by paralegal or administrative staff. We will allow the full amount of hours spent by Easterly, but will compensate this time at one-half the hourly rate.

Lastly, UDI seeks compensation for 13 hours of paralegal and administrative staff time. UDI indicates that these hours include clerical, accounting, and paralegal time. Separate fees for administrative and clerical assistance are not granted where the principals receive professional level fees. Professional fees assume overheads and are set accordingly. (See D.98-11-049.) Because no breakdown of time between the three activities is provided, we assign one third of the total hours to each task. We will grant compensation for one third of the time expended for a total of 4.3 hours, representing the amount of time attributed to paralegal tasks.

With the exception of the items described above, we find the hours billed to be reasonable and fully compensable.

4.2 Hourly Rates

UDI seeks an hourly rate of $165 per hour for the services of expert Poynts. It states that Poynts has received expert witness fees in civil lawsuits at the rate of $150 per hour for general preparation and $200 per hour for preparation and attendance at depositions and trial. It argues that the $165 per hour rate is "in line with" the rates charged by similarly qualified individuals in other Commission proceedings, but provides no examples. The work performed by Poynts was in 1997 and 1998. We find the rate of $165 per hour on the very high end of expert fees granted to intervenors during that time period. We note that in D.98-05-014, Dr. Dick Hughes-Hartogs was awarded expert fees of $120 per hour for work performed in 1997. In D.98-12-006, we awarded The Utility Reform Network (TURN) $145 per hour for the work of expert W. Marcus in 1998. Both of these experts were familiar with the issues before the Commission and had participated in past proceedings. In light of Poynt's licensing as a civil engineer, land surveyor, and general contractor, we will set the hourly rate for Poynts at $145 per hour for work performed in 1997 and 1998.

An hourly fee of $125 is sought for the work of Walter Antonio, Jr. in 1998. Antonio contributed expert knowledge regarding gas trenching based upon past experience as an employee of PG&E. He was employed by PG&E for 24.5 years, 12 of which were spent on gas installation and maintenance crews. UDI states that Antonio's normal hourly rate for utility contract review and utility consulting services is $150 per hour. We find the requested $125 per hour rate reasonable in light of Antonio's specialized experience with the subject matter of this case.

The rate sought for Connie D. Easterly, Esq., is $175 per hour for services in 1997, 1998, and 1999. Easterly is an attorney and a Certified Public Accountant with 12 years' experience. We agree with UDI that $175 is a reasonable rate for Easterly's services, and we will adopt this rate. As pointed out by UDI, this rate is within the range awarded to TURN and Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) for the services of associate attorneys in 1995-1996.

Lastly, UDI requests an hourly rate of $50 per hour for paralegal staff. We find this rate reasonable and will adopt it. We utilized this rate in D.95-05-018 for comparable services.

4.3 Other Costs

The only additional cost itemized by UDI is $64 for courier charges for filing of brief(s) with the Commission. In the future, UDI should provide additional explanation regarding the date(s) when miscellaneous costs are incurred. Where the cost is for an item such as use of a courier service, an explanation should be provided why such an expensive means of delivery was utilized. We will allow the expense in this case, given that UDI has not sought to recover any other miscellaneous expenses, and it is possible that courier delivery was necessary to meet tight filing deadlines.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First PageNext Page