docs.cpuc.ca.gov€¦ · Web viewMailed 4/16/2007. Decision 07-04-032 April 12, 2007. BEFORE THE...

ALJ/PVA/avs Mailed 4/16/2007

Decision 07-04-032 April 12, 2007

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking Concerning Broadband Over Power Line Deployment by Electric Utilities in California.

Rulemaking 05-09-006(Filed September 8,

2005)

OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION AWARDSTO THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE, DISABILITY RIGHTS

ADVOCATES AND THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FORSUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 06-04-070

274382 - 1 -

R.05-09-006 ALJ/PVA/avs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION AWARDS TO THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE, DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 06-04-070........................................3

1. Summary....................................................................................32. Background................................................................................33. Requirements for Awards of Compensation..............................4

3.1 Introduction.........................................................................43.2 Requirements for Intervenors.............................................43.3 Procedural Issues................................................................5

4. Substantial Contribution............................................................64.1 Greenlining..........................................................................64.2 Dis. RA.................................................................................74.3 TURN...................................................................................8

5. Reasonableness of Requested Compensation..........................115.1 Hours and Costs Related to and

Necessary for Substantial Contribution..............................145.1.1 Greenlining...............................................................145.1.2 Dis. RA......................................................................155.1.3 TURN........................................................................15

5.2 Market Rate Standard.......................................................155.2.1. Greenlining..............................................................165.2.2 Dis. RA......................................................................175.2.3 TURN........................................................................17

5.3 Productivity.......................................................................185.4 Direct Expenses.................................................................19

5.4.1 Greenlining...............................................................195.4.2 Dis.RA.......................................................................195.4.3 TURN........................................................................19

6. Total Awards............................................................................207. Waiver of Comment Period......................................................238. Assignment of Proceeding.......................................................23

Findings of Fact..................................................................................23Conclusions of Law.............................................................................24ORDER................................................................................................24

- i -


OPINION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION AWARDSTO THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE, DISABILITY RIGHTS

ADVOCATES AND THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FORSUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 06-04-070

1. SummaryThis decision grants intervenor compensation awards of

$28,987.90 to the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining), $16,223.74 to Disability Rights Advocates (Dis. RA), and $64,391.75 to The Utility Reform Network (TURN) (collectively, intervenors). These awards are for substantial contributions each intervenor made to Decision (D.) 06-04-070. Today’s awards will be paid from the Commission’ intervenor compensation program fund, described in D.00-01-020. This proceeding is closed.2. Background

The subject Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) raised a number of issues and proposed draft rules addressing potential investment in and operation of a Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) system over the electric distribution grid of California’s investor-owned utilities. The proposed rules were intended to create a regulatory model to encourage BPL deployment. No evidentiary hearings were held. However, the intervenors and numerous other parties filed initial comments and reply comments, participated in a prehearing conference (PHC), and filed comments on initial draft and alternate draft decisions.

- 2 -


3. Requirements for Awards of Compensation3.1 Introduction

The intervenor compensation program, established in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812,1 requires California jurisdictional utilities to pay the reasonable costs of an intervenor’s participation, as determined by the Commission, if the intervenor’s presentation makes a substantial contribution to the Commission’s decision and if participation imposes a significant financial hardship.

We carefully review each intervenor’s request to determine whether it complies with statutory requirements and related standards and requirements established by the Commission. We do so because the costs of compensation awards are ultimately paid by utility ratepayers. By ensuring that the requirements for awards are met, we provide assurance that ratepayers receive value for the compensation costs that they underwrite.

3.2 Requirements for IntervenorsAll of the following procedures and criteria must be satisfied

for an intervenor to obtain a compensation award:1. The intervenor must satisfy certain procedural

requirements including the filing of a sufficient notice of intent (NOI) to claim compensation within 30 days of the PHC. (§ 1804(a).)

2. The intervenor must be a “customer,” i.e., a participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of a utility subject to our jurisdiction, or an authorized representative. (§ 1802(b).)

3. The intervenor must file a request for a compensation award within 60 days of the final

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.

- 3 -


order or decision in a hearing or proceeding. (§ 1804(c).)

4. The intervenor must demonstrate “significant financial hardship.” (§§ 1802(g), 1804(a)(2)(B), 1804(b)(1).)

5. The intervenor’s presentation must have made a “substantial contribution” to the proceeding. (§ 1802(i).)

6. The requested compensation must be reasonable. Among other things, the claimed fees and costs must be comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. (§ 1806.)

For discussion here, the procedural issues in Items 1-4 are combined, followed by separate discussions on Items 5 and 6.

3.3 Procedural IssuesThe PHC in this matter was held on December 8, 2005.

Greenlining filed its NOI on November 9, Dis. RA on November 8, and TURN on December 15, 2005. All NOI filings are timely.

Each intervenor is authorized pursuant to its bylaws or articles of incorporation to represent the interests of residential or small commercial customers. We therefore find that each qualifies as a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1) (C).

Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN made a showing of financial hardship in their NOIs. We find that Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN meet the financial hardship condition, pursuant to § 1802(g), as the economic interests of their individual members are small compared to the overall costs of effective participation.

Greenlining filed its request for compensation on June 30, Dis. RA on June 29, and TURN on July 3, 2006, all within 60 days of D.06-04-070 being issued. In view of the above, we find that each

- 4 -


intervenor has met all of the procedural requirements necessary to claim compensation in this proceeding.4. Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. First, we consider whether the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (See § 1802(i).) Second, if the customer’s contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we consider whether the customer’s participation materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision. (See §§ 1802(i) and 1802.5.) As described in § 1802(i), the assessment of whether the customer made a substantial contribution requires the exercise of judgment.

Should the Commission not adopt any of the customer’s recommendations, it may still award compensation if the customer’s participation substantially contributed to the decision or order in other ways. With this context in mind, we consider the contributions of each intervenor.

4.1 GreenliningGreenlining was the only party that advocated that the

Commission investigate direct ratepayer investment in BPL for the purposes of providing broadband service (D.06-04-070, p. 16). Greenlining also urged the Commission to consider the potential impact of BPL on underserved communities. Greenlining argued that if the Commission exempts BPL deployment from § 851 the utilities

- 5 -


could rush to sign leases with BPL companies that are not low-cost providers. Greenlining maintained that the best way to extend broadband to low-income communities would be for the Commission to retain § 851 review and promote the entrance of companies that want to own both the electric infrastructure and BPL technology.

Greenlining argued that reduced cost, rather than entry by utilities into the BPL market, would lead to increased competition and be the most likely factor to increase access. Greenlining encouraged the Commission to foster a regulatory environment that engendered innovation and reduced cost.

Also, Greenlining argued that the revenue-sharing focus of the proposed “landlord-tenant” system would have no effect on increasing access and competition for BPL. Greenlining argued that keeping electric utilities separate from BPL providers would negate the prospect for any increased broadband access because of increased costs. Greenlining urged the Commission to require the utilities, rather than third parties, to bear ultimate responsibility and accountability for the delivery of BPL. Also, Greenlining urged the Commission against precluding ratepayer investment into a BPL system by erroneously assessing BPL as a non-utility.

We find that Greenlining made a substantial contribution to D.06-04-070, by its work involving direct ratepayer investment in BPL.

4.2 Dis. RADis. RA was the sole party to this proceeding to raise

concerns about the accessibility of pedestrian rights of way when work is done to facilitate the deployment of BPL on utility facilities, and to request an order to ensure that access is maintained. The Commission adopted this recommendation.

- 6 -


Dis. RA also made a substantial contribution by representing the interests of people with disabilities in the discussions regarding Pub. Util. Code §§ 851 and 853(b), and advocating that utility ratepayers should cross-subsidize BPL projects through higher rates.

In view of Dis. RA’s role in this proceeding, regarding pedestrian rights-of-way we find it made a substantial contribution to D.06-04-070.

4.3 TURNTURN states that its participation in this proceeding was

aimed at ensuring that consumers were not assessed costs for utility exploration into BPL, especially given the possible exemption of BPL projects from § 851 review. TURN submits that while it did not achieve all the results advocated, the Commission ultimately agreed with TURN’s more significant positions.

TURN states its substantial contribution to the final decision is evident in several areas. TURN argued that the best model for utility involvement in BPL was to permit an electric utility to allow an unaffiliated third party to own and operate a BPL system on the electric utility’s delivery system. The Commission agreed stating, “As TURN points out, the landlord-tenant model offers a number of advantages, including alignment of ratepayer and shareholder incentives, access to BPL providers’ technical and marketing expertise, true arms-length contract negotiations, a decrease in the need for regulatory oversight, and provision of the greatest potential ratepayer benefits. (D.06-04-070, p. 14.)

TURN acknowledges that although all of its arguments did not prevail, the concerns voiced by TURN resulted in the Commission holding that such affiliate ownership was subject to affiliate

- 7 -


transaction rules. (Id., p. 16.) Furthermore, through TURN’s and other parties’ efforts, the Commission also held that “a utility shall not make rate base investments in BPL if the BPL will be used for commercial broadband deployment.” (Id., p. 17.) TURN voiced strong concerns that utilities would attempt to place much of the BPL investment in rate base, thus forcing consumers to pay for BPL projects. In particular, TURN expressed concerns relating to the use of BPL to support advanced metering and other potential utility operational “benefits.” While the Commission did not fully adopt TURN’s recommendations, the final decision stated

TURN expresses a concern that SDG&E will use its advanced metering proposal to subsidize BPL for the benefit of a BPL affiliate. (TURN Reply Comments on Draft Decision, pp. 4-5.) We clarify in this decision that a utility shall not make rate base investment in BPL if the BPL will be used for commercial broadband deployment. However, a utility may invest in assets that make use of a BPL system provided that the investments can be justified on the basis of utility benefits. Furthermore, any utility proposal to invest in assets that make use of a BPL system for the purposes of advanced metering must receive the necessary approvals through the appropriate advanced metering proceeding. (Id., p. 17.)In addition, TURN argued that electric utilities should be

permitted to charge an affiliate or a third party access fees or other charges for the use of the electric delivery system, and that such revenues should be shared with ratepayers who have funded the facilities that comprise the electric utilities networks. TURN points out that the final decision adopted a model whereby the utilities could

- 8 -


either charge pole attachment fees or access-like fees. Further, the decision also adopted a 50/50 cost sharing mechanism.2

Overall, we find that TURN made a substantial contribution to D.06-04-070 in the respects described above.

2 D.06-04-070, pp. 28-31.

- 9 -


5. Reasonableness of Requested CompensationAfter we have determined the scope of a customer’s substantial

contribution, we look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable. The tables below detail the request of each intervenor for their respective participation in this proceeding.

Greenlining RequestGreenlining requests $45,729.65 for its participation as

follows:Attorneys Year Hours Rate Total

Robert Gnaizda 2005 27.1 $490.00 $13,279.00Robert Gnaizda 2006 14.4 $490.00 $7,056.00Carrie Camarena 2005 1.25 $250.00 $312.50Carrie Camarena 2006 3.75 $275.00 $1,031.25Comp 4.00 $137.50 $550.00*

Subtotal: $22,228.75Staff Year Hours Rate Total

Chris Vaeth 2005 4 $180.00 $720.00Pamela Palpallatoc

2005 13.7 $125.00 $1,712.50

Sam Kang 2005 86.9 $150.00 $13,035.00Sam Kang 2006 45.6 $150.00 $6,840.00Millie Lapidario 2005 1 $125.00 $125.00Millie Lapidario 2006 1 $125.00 $125.00

Subtotal: $22,557.50Experts Year Hours Rate Total

Michael Phillips 2005 2 $360.00 $720.00Subtotal: $720.00

Direct Expenses TotalPhotocopying $208.00Postage costs $15.40

Subtotal: $223.40TOTAL: $45,729.65

* The 50% reduction in compensation for the preparation of compensation requests is typically reflected as a reduction in the hourly rate, rather

- 10 -


than as a reduction in hours. Greenlining’s presentation has been revised accordingly.

Dis. RA RequestDis. RA requests $20,989.74 for its participation in this

proceeding as follows:Work on ProceedingAttorney/Staff Year Hour

sRate Total

Melissa Kasnitz 2005 8.7 $350/hr. $3,045.00

Melissa Kasnitz 2006 7.4 $370/hr. $2,738.00

Roger Heller 2005 37.4 $220/hr. $8,228.00

Roger Heller 2006 11.1 $260 /hr. $2,886.00

Paralegal/Law Clerks

2005 2.1 $90/hr. $189.00


2006 1.6 $90/hr. $144.00

Subtotal: $17,230.00

Compensation RequestAttorney/Staff Year Hour

sRate Total

Melissa Kasnitz 2005 0.2 $175/hr. $35.00Melissa Kasnitz 2006 4.7 $185/hr. $869.50Roger Heller 2005 1.9 $110/hr. $209.00Roger Heller 2006 0.4 $130/hr. $52.00Paralegals/Law Clerks

2005 0.4 $90/hr. $36.00

Paralegals/Law Clerks

2006 0.7 $90/hr. $63.00

Summer Associate 2006 16.4 $100/hr. $1,640.00

Subtotal: $2,904.

- 11 -


50

Direct ExpensesPostage and Copying $855.24

Subtotal: $855.24

Total: $20,989.74

- 12 -


TURN’s RequestTURN requests $64,578.00 for its participation in this

proceedingAttorney/Advocate

FeesYear Hour

sRates Total

William Nusbaum 2005 43 $365 $15,695.002006 27 $380 $10,260.00

comp 16 $190 $3,040.00Marcel Hawiger 2005 52.5 $270 $14,175.00

comp .50 $135 $67.502006 4.5 $280 $1,260.00

Mike Florio 2005 12.75 $470 $5,992.50Nina Suetake 2005 8.50 $190 $1,615.00Regina Costa 2005 9.25 $230 $2,127.50

2006 2.25 $240 $540.00Robert Finkelstein 2005 1.25 $395 $493.75

Subtotal $55,266.25Expert Witness Fees and ExpensesTerry L. Murray 2005 4.75 $350 $1,662.50William Marcus 2005 .75 $210 $157.50Gayatri Schilberg 2005 41.83 $165 $6,901.95

2006 1.15 $165 $189.75Subtotal $8,911.70

Direct ExpensesPhotocopying $222.40Lexis $162.65Phone $15.00

Subtotal $400.05TOTAL: $64,578.00

- 13 -


5.1 Hours and Costs Related to andNecessary for Substantial Contribution

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.

5.1.1 GreenliningGreenlining documented it claimed hours by presenting a

daily breakdown of the hours of its attorneys and staff, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. Some of the hours claimed by Gnaizda are not related to the Commission decision. Appendix A of Greenlining’s request for compensation includes 4.3 hours for Gnaizda related to meeting with CEOs of several companies. Meetings with CEOs were not necessary for Greenlining’s substantial contribution. Therefore, we exclude those hours. Appendix A also includes 1.9 hours related to “alternatives for gas hikes.” This proceeding had nothing to do with gas. We also exclude those hours from Gnaizda’s compensated hours.

The adjusted hours for the services of Gnaizda is 35.3, and the requested hours for staff member Kang is 132.5 hours. While Greenlining made a significant contribution through its work involving direct ratepayer investment in BPL, Greenlining’s contribution was on a narrow set of issues. TURN, in contrast, made a much more comprehensive presentation. The hours claimed by Greenlining are out of proportion to its contribution. TURN, by comparison, made a much more comprehensive presentation, which is similarly reflected in TURN’s hours.

- 14 -


Accordingly, after making the adjustment described above, we are reducing the compensated hours for Gnaizda and Kang by 25% each. All other requested hours are compensated.

5.1.2 Dis. RADis. RA documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily

breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. The hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim for total hours. As set forth above, Dis. RA’s request includes 16.1 hours for services of Managing Attorney Kasnitz and 48.5 hours for staff attorney Roger Heller. Dis. RA’s substantial contribution regarding pedestrian rights-of-way is narrow relative to the broad range of issues addressed by the decision. In other areas Dis. RA’s comments repeated the arguments of other parties, especially in relation to § 851. Dis. RA should have made its contribution more efficiently. Accordingly, we are reducing the compensated hours for Kasnitz and Heller by 25% each.

5.1.3 TURNTURN documented its claimed hours by presenting a daily

breakdown of the hours of its attorneys, accompanied by a brief description of each activity. The hourly breakdown reasonably supports the claim for total hours.

5.2 Market Rate StandardWe 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.

- 15 -


5.2.1. GreenliningFor attorney Gnaizda, Greenlining seeks an hourly rate of

$490 for work performed in 2005 and 2006. We previously approved this rate in D.06-04-021 for his work in 2005 and adopt it here for both years.

For attorney Camarena, Greenlining seeks hourly rates of $250 and $275 for work performed in 2005 and 2006, respectively. We previously approved a $250 rate for Camarena for 2005 and $260 for 2006 in D.06-11-009, and adopt those rates here.

Greenlining seeks 2005 hourly rates of $180 for Vaeth, $125 for Palpallatoc, $150 for Kang and $125 for Lapidario. They each provided services in a paralegal/law clerk capacity for purposes of this proceeding and should be compensated accordingly. In D.06-10-013, we approved a 2005 hourly rate of $110 for Palpallatoc and Kang, and a $125 rate for Lapidario, and adopt those rates here. For Vaeth, we adopt a rate of $110 for his work as a paralegal here in 2005, recognizing we previously approved higher rates in other proceedings for his work as an expert.

For 2006 work, Greenlining requests rates of $125 for Lapidario (no increase from 2005), and $150 for Kang. We adopt the requested $125 rate for Lapidario for 2006. For Kang, we adopt a 2006 rate of $115 following the guidelines set forth in R.06-08-019 that a 3% increase for 2006 work is reasonable.

For expert Phillips, Greenlining seeks a 2005 hourly rate of $360. We previously approved a rate of $335 for Phillips for 2005 in D.06-04-021 and adopt that rate here.

- 16 -


5.2.2 Dis. RAFor attorney Kasnitz, Dis. RA seeks hourly rates of $350 for

2005, and $370 for 2006. We previously approved rates for Kasnitz of $350 for 2005 and $360 for 2006 in D.06-11-009, and adopt those rates here.

For attorney Heller, Dis. RA seeks 2005 and 2006 hourly rates of $220 and $260, respectively. Heller graduated from Columbia School of Law in 2001 and has five years of professional experience. The requested 2005 rate is within the approved range for attorneys with three to four years experience (D.05-11-031, p. 16), and we adopt that rate here. For 2006, we adopt the requested rate of $260 for Heller considering that he would be in the next experience range in 2006 and allowing for a 3% cost of living increase (R.06-08-019).

For Springer, a law student, Dis. RA seeks a 2006 hourly rate of $100. This rate is within the guidelines of D.05-11-031 and is adopted here. For paralegals/law clerks, Dis. RA seeks 2005 and 2006 hourly rates of $90 for both years. We previously approved this rate in D.06-04-021 and adopt it here for both years.

5.2.3 TURNFor attorney Nusbaum, TURN seeks 2005 and 2006 hourly

rates of $365 and $380, respectively. In D.06-11-009, we approved rates for Nusbaum of $365 for 2005 and $375 for 2006 and adopt those rates here.

For attorney Hawiger, TURN seeks 2005 and 2006 hourly rates of $270 and $280, respectively. We previously approved these same rates in D.06-11-009 and adopt them here.

- 17 -


For attorney Florio, TURN seeks an hourly rate of $470 for work performed in 2005. We previously approved this rate in D.06-04-036 and adopt it here.

For attorney Suetake, TURN seeks a 2005 hourly rate of $190. We previously approved this rate in D.06-04-065 and adopt it here.

For expert Costa, TURN seeks 2005 and 2006 hourly rates of $230 and $240, respectively. We previously approved the $230 rate for Costa for 2005 in D.06-04-031 and adopt it here. For 2006, we adopt a rate of $235 for Costa, following the guidelines of R.06-08-019.

For expert Murray, TURN requests a 2005 hourly rate of $350. We previously approved this rate in D.06-09-011, and adopt it here.

For expert Marcus, TURN requests a 2005 hourly rate of $210. We previously approved this rate in D.06-04-029, and adopt it here.

For expert Schilberg, TURN requests an hourly rate of $165 for work performed in 2005 and 2006. We previously approved these rates in D.06-10-018 and adopt them here.

5.3 ProductivityD.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.

- 18 -


Because this proceeding did not direct utilities to take specific action and did not directly and immediately affect utility rates, it is difficult to determine a dollar value of the work undertaken by intervenors. However, it is sufficient to find here that the intervenors contributed materially to the decision we issued by providing a variety of perspectives, analyses and proposals on relevant subjects. Consequently, the intervenors significantly advanced our thinking on the important public policy questions we addressed in the decision, and we find their participation was productive.

5.4 Direct ExpensesThe itemized direct expenses submitted by intervenors

include costs for travel, photocopying, postage, telephone, Lexis services and messenger services.

5.4.1 GreenliningGreenlining requests $223.40 for direct expenses. These

expenses are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed.5.4.2 Dis.RADis.RA requests $855.24 for direct expenses. Of this

amount, $720.75 is for photocopying and printing (the bulk for printing, as stated in the request). By comparison, TURN requested $222.40, and Greenlining $208.00 for photocopying. We find that $720.75 is excessive for printing and/or photocopying, and disallow $500 of that amount. This results in total awarded direct expenses of $355.24.

5.4.3 TURNTURN requests $400.05 for direct expenses. These

expenses are reasonable and commensurate with the work performed.

- 19 -


6. Total AwardsWe award intervenor compensation as set forth in the tables

below:Greenlining

Attorneys Year Hours Rate TotalRobert Gnaizda

2005 15.7 $490 $7,693.00

Robert Gnaizda

2006 10.8 $490 $5,292.00

Carrie Camarena

2005 1.25 $250.00 $312.50

Carrie Camarena

2006 3.75 $260.00 $975.00

Subtotal $14,272.50

Compensation Request3

Attorney Year Hours Rate TotalCarrie Camarena

2006 4 $130.00 $520.00

Subtotal: $520.00Staff Year Hours Rate Total

Chris Vaeth 2005 4 $110.00 $440.00Pamela Palpallatoc

2005 13.7 $110.00 $1,507.00

Sam Kang 2005 65.2 $110.00 $7,172.00Sam Kang 2006 34.2 $115.00 $3,933.00Millie Lapidario 2005 1 $125.00 $125.00Millie Lapidario 2006 1 $125.00 $125.00

Subtotal: $13,302.00Expert Year Hours Rate Total

Michael Phillips 2005 2 $335.00 $670.00Subtotal: $670.00

Direct ExpensesPhotocopying $208.00Postage costs $15.40

Subtotal: $223.40TOTAL: $28,987.90

3 Hourly rates reduced 50% for preparation of compensation request.

- 20 -


Dis. RAWork on ProceedingAttorney/Staff Year Hours Rate Total

Melissa Kasnitz 2005 6.5 $350/hr $2,275.00Melissa Kasnitz 2006 5.6 $360/hr $2,016.00Roger Heller 2005 28.1 $220/hr $6,182.00Roger Heller 2006 8.3 $260/hr $2,158.00Paralegal/Law Clerks

2005 2.1 $90/hr $189.00


2006 1.6 $90/hr $144.00

Subtotal: $12,964.00Preparation of NOI and Fee RequestAttorney/Staff Year Hours Rate Total

Melissa Kasnitz 2005 0.2 $175/hr $35.00Melissa Kasnitz 2006 4.7 $185/hr $869.50Roger Heller 2005 1.9 $110/hr $209.00Roger Heller 2006 0.4 $130/hr $52.00Paralegal/Law Clerks

2005 0.4 $90/hr $36.00


2006 0.7 $90/hr $63.00

Summer Associate 2006 16.4 $100/hr $1,640.00Subtotal: $2,904.50

Direct Expenses TotalPostage and Copying $355.24

TOTAL: $16,223.74

- 21 -


TURNAttorney/Advocate

FeeYear Hours Rate Total

William Nusbaum 2005 43 $365 $15,695.002006 27 $375 $10,125.00

comp 16 $187.50 $3,000.00Marcel Hawiger 2005 52.5 $270 $14,175.00

comp .50 $135 $67.502006 4.5 $280 $1,260.00

Mike Florio 2005 12.75 $470 $5,992.50Nina Suetake 2005 8.50 $190 $1,615.00Regina Costa 2005 9.25 $230 $2,127.50

2006 2.25 $235 $528.75Robert Finkelstein 2005 1.25 $395 $493..75

Subtotal: $55,080.00Expert Witness Fees and ExpensesTerry L. Murray 2005 4.75 $350 $1,662.50William Marcus 2005 .75 $210 $157.50Gayatri Schilberg 2005 41.83 $165 $6,901.95

2006 1.15 $165 $189.75Subtotal: $8,911.70

Direct ExpensesPhotocopying $222.40Lexis $162.65Phone $15.00

Subtotal: $400.05TOTAL: $64,391.75

This proceeding affected a broad array of utilities in the telecommunications and electric industries. As such, we find it appropriate to make payment from the Commission’s intervenor compensation program fund, as described in D.00-01-020.

Consistent with previous Commission decisions, we order that interest be paid on the award amount (at the rate earned on prime, three-month commercial paper, as reported in Federal Reserve

- 22 -


Statistical Release H.15) commencing on the 75th day after each intervenor filed its compensation request, and continuinguntil full payment of the award is made.4

We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit records relevant to this award, and that intervenors must make and retain adequate accounting and other documentation to support all claims for intervenor compensation. The records of Greenlining, Dis. RA, and TURN should identify specific issues for which each requested compensation, the actual time spent by each employee or consultant, the applicable hourly rate, fees paid to consultants, and any other costs for which compensation was claimed.7. Waiver of Comment Period

This is an intervenor compensation matter. Accordingly, as provided by Rule 14.6(c)(6) of our Rules of Practice and Procedure, we waive the otherwise applicable 30-day comment period for this decision.8. Assignment of Proceeding

Rachelle B. Chong is the assigned Commissioner and Peter V. Allen is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.Findings of Fact1. Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN have satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to claim compensation in this proceeding. 2. Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN made substantial contributions to D.06-04-070, as described herein.3. Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN requested hourly rates for their representatives that, as adjusted herein, are reasonable when

4 For Greenlining, the 75th day is September 13, 2006. For Dis.RA, the 75th day is September 12, 2006. For TURN, the 75th day is September 16, 2006.

- 23 -


compared with the market rates for persons of similar training and experience.4. The related expenses requested by Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN, as adjusted herein, are reasonable and commensurate with then work performed.5. The total reasonable compensation for Greenlining is $28,987.90.6. The total reasonable compensation to Dis. RA is $16,223.74.7. The total reasonable compensation for TURN is $64,391.75.8. The appendix to this opinion summarizes today’s awards.Conclusions of Law1. Greenlining, Dis. RA and TURN have fulfilled the requirements of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812, which govern awards of intervenor compensation, and are entitled to intervenor compensation for their claimed compensation, as set forth herein, incurred in making substantial contributions to D.06-04-070.2. Greenlining should be awarded $28,987.90; Dis. RA $16,223.24; and TURN $64,391.75 for their contributions to D.06-04-0703. Pursuant to Rule 14.6(c)(6), the comment period for this compensation decision may be waived.4. This order should be effective today so that Greenlining, Dis. RA, and TURN may be compensated without further delay.5. Rulemaking 05-09-006 should be closed.

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that:1. Greenlining Institute is awarded $28,987.90 in compensation for its contribution to Decision (D.) 06-04-070.

- 24 -


2. Disability Rights Advocates is awarded $16,223.24 in compensation for its contribution to D.06-04-070.3. The Utility Reform Network is awarded $64,391.75 in compensation for its contribution to D.06-04-070.4. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, the awards described herein shall be paid from the Commission’s intervenor compensation program fund, described in D.00-01-020. Payment of the awards shall include interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning the 75th day after the date of the respective compensation request filings, and continuing until full payment is made.5. The comment period for today’s decision is waived.6. Rulemaking 05-09-006 is closed.

This order is effective today.Dated April 12, 2007, at San Francisco, California.

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY PresidentDIAN M. GRUENEICHJOHN A. BOHNRACHELLE B. CHONGTIMOTHY ALAN SIMON

Commissioners

- 25 -


APPENDIX ACompensation Decision Summary Information

Compensation Decision(s): D0704032

Contribution Decision(s): D0604070

Proceeding(s): R0509006Author: ALJ Allen

Payer(s):Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Verizon California Incorporated, and AT&T Communications of California, Inc.

Intervenor Information

Intervenor Claim DateAmount

RequestedAmount Awarded Reason Change/ Disallowance

Greenlining Institute 6/30/06 $45,729.65 $28,987.90 Excessive hours discounted; Typing

services disallowed.Disability Rights Advocates 6/29/06 $20,989.74 $16,223.24 Excessive hours discounted and

direct-expenses disallowed.The Utility Reform Network 7/03/06 $64,578.00 $64,391.75 Hourly rates adjusted.

Advocate Information

First Name

Last Name

Type Intervenor Hourly Fee

Requested

Year Hourly Fee Adopted

Robert Gnaizda Attorney Greenlining Institute $490 2005-

2006$490

Carrie Camarena “ Greenlining Institute $250 2005 $250Carrie Camarena “ Greenlining Institute $275 2006 $260Chris Vaeth Paraleg

al Greenlining Institute $180 2005 $110

Sam Kang “ Greenlining Institute $150 2005 $110Sam Kang “ Greenlining Institute $150 2006 $115

Michael Phillips Expert Greenlining Institute $360 2005 $335Melissa Kasnitz Attorne

yDisability Rights

Advocates$350 2005 $350

Melissa Kasnitz “ Disability Rights Advocates

$370 2006 $360

Roger Heller “ Disability Rights Advocates

$220 2005 $220

Roger Heller “ Disability Rights Advocates

$260 2006 $260

Paralegal Paralegal

Disability Rights Advocates

$90 2005-2006

$90

William Nusbaum Attorney

The Utility Reform Network

$365 2005 $365

William Nusbaum “ The Utility Reform Network

$380 2006 $375

Marcel Hawiger “ The Utility Reform Network

$270 2005 $270

Marcel Hawiger “ The Utility Reform Network

$280 2006 $280

Michel Florio “ The Utility Reform Network

$470 2005 $470

R.05-09-006 ALJ/PVA/avs DRAFT

Robert Finkelstein “ The Utility Reform Network

$395 2005 $395

Nina Suetake “ The Utility Reform Network

$190 2005 $190

Regina Costa Expert The Utility Reform Network

$230 2005 $230

Regina Costa “ The Utility Reform Network

$240 2006 $235

Terry Murray “ The Utility Reform Network

$350 2005 $350

William Marcus “ The Utility Reform Network

$210 2005 $210

Gayatri Schilberg “ The Utility Reform Network

$165 2005 $165

(END OF APPENDIX A)

docs.cpuc.ca.gov€¦ · Web viewMailed 4/16/2007. Decision 07-04-032 April 12, 2007. BEFORE THE...

Documents

Transcript of docs.cpuc.ca.gov€¦ · Web viewMailed 4/16/2007. Decision 07-04-032 April 12, 2007. BEFORE THE...