the preparation of briefs and negotiations with various other parties to intervenor is explore possible settlement options. ineligible for compensation for All of Academy's tasks were reasonably calculated to achieve failure to its core interest in this proceeding and all bear a reasonable establish relationship to the ultimate outcome it has sought in this customer status proceeding, namely, for the Commission not to approve the under § 1802(b). proposed contact for the Ellwood refurbishment, because there are other, better and more cost-effective ways to solve the existing reliability problem in the Goleta sub-area. All of the Academy's attorney time, as reflected in Attachment 1, and its staff time, as reflected in Attachment 2, were indispensable parts of the team that the Academy assembled in order to be able to make its case in this proceeding. The Academy's ultimate request for compensation of is $110.524.00 reasonable in light of the complexity and difficulty of pulling together the highly sophisticated technical, economic and policy evidence and legal arguments that supported the Academy's efforts to make the case that the proposed Ellwood refurbishment project and its associated contract should not be approved. Finally, the eminent Scott Samuelsen, Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Irvine, provided his Testimony on behalf of the Academy at no cost to the Academy, and the Academy is not seeking reimbursement for Professor Samuelsen's efforts on its behalf. b. Reasonableness of hours claimed: The reasonableness of Attorneys The Academy takes seriously its responsibility to California’s ratepayers hours claimed is as an intervenor. Its hours are reasonable and reflect conscientious not addressed efforts to limit the expenses associated with participation to solely those based on finding topics pertinent to the Academy's key concerns. The Academy that intervenor is reviewed all relevant filings, as is necessary to competently participate in the proceeding, but limited its active participation to only one ineligible for attorney. The Academy avoided excessive billing of attorney time by compensation for substantially limiting its participation to one key issue in the case, failure to namely, the reasonableness of the proposed Ellwood refurbishment.
the preparation of briefs and negotiations with various other parties to explore possible settlement options. All of Academy's tasks were reasonably calculated to achieve its core interest in this proceeding and all bear a reasonable relationship to the ultimate outcome it has sought in this proceeding, namely, for the Commission not to approve the proposed contact for the Ellwood refurbishment, because there are other, better and more cost-effective ways to solve the existing reliability problem in the Goleta sub-area. All of the Academy's attorney time, as reflected in Attachment 1, and its staff time, as reflected in Attachment 2, were indispensable parts of the team that the Academy assembled in order to be able to make its case in this proceeding. The Academy's ultimate request for compensation of $110.524.00 is reasonable in light of the complexity and difficulty of pulling together the highly sophisticated technical, economic and policy evidence and legal arguments that supported the Academy's efforts to make the case that the proposed Ellwood refurbishment project and its associated contract should not be approved. Finally, the eminent Scott Samuelsen, Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Irvine, provided his Testimony on behalf of the Academy at no cost to the Academy, and the Academy is not seeking reimbursement for Professor Samuelsen's efforts on its behalf. intervenor is ineligible for compensation for failure to establish customer status under § 1802(b). b. Reasonableness of hours claimed: Attorneys The Academy takes seriously its responsibility to California’s ratepayers as an intervenor. Its hours are reasonable and reflect conscientious efforts to limit the expenses associated with participation to solely those topics pertinent to the Academy's key concerns. The Academy reviewed all relevant filings, as is necessary to competently participate in the proceeding, but limited its active participation to only one attorney. The Academy avoided excessive billing of attorney time by substantially limiting its participation to one key issue in the case, namely, the reasonableness of the proposed Ellwood refurbishment. The reasonableness of hours claimed is not addressed based on finding that intervenor is ineligible for compensation for failure to
169563088.docx