STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

August 21, 2001

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 98-12-005

This is the draft decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Maloney. It will be on the Commission's agenda at the next regular meeting 30 days after the above date. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later.

When the Commission acts on the draft decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.

Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the draft decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." These rules are accessible on the Commission's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the Assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.

Lynn T. Carew, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

LTC:k47

Enclosure

ALJ/KCM/k47 DRAFT CA 12

9/20/2001

Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ MALONEY (Mailed 8/21/2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Joint Application of GTE Corporation ("GTE") and Bell Atlantic Corporation ("Bell Atlantic") to Transfer Control of GTE's California Utility Subsidiaries to Bell Atlantic, Which Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of GTE's Merger With Bell Atlantic.

Application 98-12-005 (Filed December 2, 1998)

OPINION ON REQUEST FOR

INTERVENOR COMPENSATION

TITLE PAGE

OPINION ON REQUEST FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION 1

1. Background 2

2. Procedural Matters 3

3. Requirements for Awards of Compensation 3

4. NOI To Claim Compensation 4

5. Substantial Contribution to Resolution of Issues 5

6. Underrepresentation, Fair Determination, and Duplication of Effort 8

7. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation 15

7.1 Overall Benefits of Participation 18

7.2 Hours Claimed 19

7.3 Hourly Rates 23

7.4 Other Costs 27

7.5 Award 29

Comments 32

Findings of Fact 32

Conclusions of Law 36

ORDER 36

This decision resolves pending requests for awards of intervenor compensation filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), The Greenlining Institute (GL), Latino Issues Forum (LIF)¹, and Public Advocates, Inc. (PA) for substantial contributions to Decision (D.) 00-03-021. We award TURN $146,113.66; we award GL/LIF $159,414.76; we award PA $167,844.20.

1. Background

In this proceeding we reviewed the joint application of GTE Corporation (GTE) and Bell Atlantic Corporation (Bell Atlantic)² for approval to transfer GTE's California utility subsidiaries to Bell Atlantic, as a result of the merger of GTE with Bell Atlantic. In D.00-03-021 we approved the application with limited conditions and clarifications. The conditions and clarifications relate to the total amount of benefits allocated to ratepayers, distribution of those benefits, the funding of the Community Collaborative Agreement (CCA), preparation of service quality monitoring reports, and sharing of state level accounting cost information. We adopted D.00-03-021 following 13 days of evidentiary hearings during which 146 exhibits were received, as well as opening and reply briefs, and comments on the proposed decision (PD) of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

TURN, GL/LIF, and PA all filed timely Notices of Intent (NOI) to claim intervenor compensation. Following issuance of D.00-03-021, TURN, GL/LIF, and PA each filed a Request For Compensation (Request). GL/LIF filed a subsequent Errata to Request (Errata).

No opposition to TURN's Request was filed. However, Applicants filed a Joint Response (Joint Response) to the Requests of GL/LIF and PA. Applicants agree that the participation of these intervenors merits compensation, but they challenge the proposed hourly rates for attorney services. A Response to Request (Response) was filed by PA addressing the issue of duplication of effort between PA and GL/LIF. A Motion For Leave to Late-File Reply and Reply (Reply) were filed by GL/LIF, in which the issue of duplication of effort is addressed.