ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

Agenda ID #21684
Ratesetting

Decision __________
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider
Regulating Telecommunications Services Used
by Incarcerated People.

Rulemaking 20-10-002

DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO
CENTER FOR ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 21-08-037
Intervenor: Center for Accessible
Technology (CforAT)

For contribution to Decision (D.)21-08-037

Claimed: $125,174.00

Awarded: $113,362.00

Assigned Commissioner: Darcie Houck1

Assigned ALJ: Robert Haga2

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Brief description of Decision:

D.21-08-037 adopted interim rate caps on intrastate
rates for incarcerated persons calling services including
services for incarcerated persons with disabilities,
prohibited the imposition of certain fees and prohibited
the imposition of any ancillary fee or service fee not
explicitly approved in this decision.

1

This proceeding was reassigned to Commissioner Houck on February 1, 2022

2

This proceeding was reassigned to ALJ Haga on February 14, 2022

511389886

-1-

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

B. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util.
Code §§ 1801-18123:
Intervenor

CPUC Verification

Timely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)):
1. Date of Prehearing Conference:

12/10/2020

2. Other specified date for NOI:

N/A

3. Date NOI filed:

1/11/2021

4. Was the NOI timely filed?

Verified
Verified
Yes

Showing of eligible customer status (§ 1802(b))
or eligible local government entity status (§§ 1802(d), 1802.4):
5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in
proceeding number:

No ruling has been issued on
CforAT’s NOI in this
proceeding. CforAT’s most
recent finding of eligible
customer status was issued in
R.20-01-007. CforAT has
requested an updated finding
of eligible customer status in
our NOI submitted in
A.20-11-001 (proposed
Verizon / TracFone merger),
filed on February 25, 2021.

Verified in
R.20-01-007

6. Date of ALJ ruling:

5/29/20

Verified

7. Based on another CPUC
determination (specify):

N/A

8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer status or eligible
government entity status?

Yes

Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(h) or § 1803.1(b)):
9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in
proceeding number:

3

No ruling has been issued on
CforAT’s NOI in this
proceeding. CforAT’s most
recent finding of significant
financial hardship was issued
in R.20-01-007. CforAT has
requested an updated finding
of significant financial

Verified in
R.20-01-007

All statutory references are to California Public Utilities Code unless indicated otherwise.

-2-

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

Intervenor

CPUC Verification

hardship in our NOI
submitted in A.20-11-001
10. Date of ALJ ruling:

5/29/20

11. Based on another CPUC
determination (specify):

N/A

12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship?

Verified

Yes

Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):
13. Identify Final Decision:

D.21-08-036

D.21-08-037

14. Date of issuance of Final Order or
Decision:

8/23/2021

Verified

15. File date of compensation request:

10/22/2021

Verified

16. Was the request for compensation timely?

Yes

PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION
A. Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision
(see § 1802(j), § 1803(a), 1803.1(a) and D.98-04-059):
Intervenor’s
Claimed Contribution(s)

Specific References to
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

Background/Overview: Since the
proceeding was first opened in 2020,
CforAT has been an active
participant in order to address issues
of concern to our constituency of
customers with disabilities, including
the large number of incarcerated
persons with disabilities. CforAT has
worked in conjunction with an
outside consultant with deep subject
matter expertise (the Human Rights
Defense Center or HRDC) and has
participated in a broad coalition of
advocates as appropriate in order to
efficiently advance the interests of
our constituency.

CPUC
Discussion
Noted

-3-

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Intervenor’s
Claimed Contribution(s)

PROPOSED DECISION

Specific References to
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

Contributions to Interim Decision

CPUC
Discussion
Noted

In conjunction with the Interim
Decision, CforAT addressed multiple
issues including the Commission’s
jurisdiction; the state of competition
in the IPCS market(s), IPCS services
for people with disabilities, rate caps,
and ancillary fees. Each of these
items is addressed separately below.
Jurisdiction: CforAT recommended
that the Commission separately
address, as part of the proceeding, the
issue of the extent of its jurisdiction.
Opening Comments on OIR at
pp. 2-3, 6.
“There is no reasonable dispute that
the Commission has jurisdiction to
address rates and fees for intrastate
communication services to prisoners
in California.” Reply Comments on
OIR at p. 1.
CforAT argued that the
Commission’s authority “to regulate
ancillary services and fees is not
limited to the specific fees that are
regulated at the federal level, and
should include a review of all
ancillary fees as well as other issues
as noted here.” Reply Comments on
OIR at pp. 2, 10.
CforAT argued that the Commission
did not need to defer to the FCC
regarding ancillary services. Reply
Comments on OIR at p. 10.

The Commission confirmed that it had
jurisdiction over specific intrastate
communication services: “We define
intrastate IPCS for purposes of this
decision as including (but not limited to)
voice and interconnected VoIP calling,
including voice and VoIP voice
communications services serving people
with disabilities. As discussed above,
IPCS providers providing such services
are telephone corporations and public
utilities and as such are subject to our
jurisdiction and the requirement of
Public Utilities Code Section 451 to
ensure just and reasonable rates.”
Decision at p. 21.
The Decision held that the Commission
had the jurisdiction to regulate ancillary
services. Decision at p. 75. “It is within
the Commission’s authority and
jurisdiction to adopt lower ancillary fee
caps than those adopted for interstate
IPCS and to require IPCS providers to
adhere to our adopted fee requirements
for intrastate and jurisdictionally mixed
ancillary services.” Decision at p. 76.

-4-

Verified

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Intervenor’s
Claimed Contribution(s)

PROPOSED DECISION

Specific References to
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

CPUC
Discussion

Competition
CforAT argued that there were two
relevant markets for ICPS. Reply
Comments on OIR at p. 68; Opening
Comments on ALJ Ruling at pp. 3-5.

“Additionally, as CforAT described, the
IPCS market is properly thought of as
consisting of two markets or two sets of
customers: providers ‘compete’ for the
right to provide IPCS to the
incarcerated.” Decision at p. 35.

CforAT argued that a lack of
competition in the ICPS market could
lead to supracompetitive prices.
Opening Comments on OIR at p. 7.

The Decision found that “[b]ased on a
careful review of the record in this
proceeding and informed by the FCC’s
actions, we conclude that IPCS
providers in California operate as
locational monopolies within
incarceration facilities and exercise
market power to charge unjust and
unreasonable rates. We define “market
power” in this case as the ability of a
company to sustain prices at levels
above those a competitive market would
produce.” Decision at p. 39 (citing
CforAT Reply Comments on Proposed
Decision at p. 3).

CforAT argued that the lack of
competitive pressure to ensure rates
are just and reasonable has led to
prices higher than they would be in a
competitive market. Reply
Comments on OIR at p. 8; Opening
Comments on ALJ Ruling at pp. 2-3.

CforAT argued that providers of
IPCS offered service on a monopoly
basis. Opening Comments on ALJ
Ruling at pp. 4-5; Reply Comments
on ALJ Ruling at pp. 4-6; Opening
Comments on PD at pp. 2-3; Reply
Comments on Proposed Decision at
p. 3.

The Commission found that
“[i]ncarceration facilities typically limit
provision of IPCS with in a facility to
one provider” and therefore operated
monopolies. Decision at p. 34.

Verified

Verified

Incarcerated Persons with
Communications Disabilities
[Procedural Contribution]
CforAT argued that the Commission
should expand the scope of the
proceeding’s examination of ICPS
for people with disabilities beyond
text telephones. Opening Comments

The Decision did not limit its scope to
text telephones, instead addressing
communications services for people
with disabilities more broadly: “We
define intrastate IPCS for purposes of
-5-

Verified

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Intervenor’s
Claimed Contribution(s)
on OIR at pp. 4-5; Reply Comments
on OIR at pp. 4-5.

PROPOSED DECISION

Specific References to
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

CPUC
Discussion

this decision as including (but not
limited to) voice and interconnected
VoIP calling, including voice and VoIP
voice communications services serving
people with disabilities.” Decision at
p. 21; Conclusion of Law 5; Ordering
Paragraph 1. The Commission also
made clear its intent to address this issue
comprehensively in the next phase of
the proceeding. Scoping Memo at p. 26.

Rate Caps
CforAT supported the Commission’s
setting rate caps on IPCS that are just
and reasonable. Opening Comments
on OIR at p. 3; Opening Comments
on ALJ Ruling at p. 5.

The Decision held that a $0.05/minute
rate was “a reasonable ‘base rate’ to use
to identify an appropriate interim
per-minute rate.” Decision at p. 53.

Verified

CforAT supported the Commission’s
imposing rate caps on an interim
basis. Opening Comments on ALJ
Ruling at pp. 6-7.

The Decision states that “as CforAT…
noted, IPCS providers had the
opportunity to but did not file data
summarizing the range of security or
other costs to IPCS providers. IPCS
CforAT initially supported the
providers had the opportunity to but did
Commission’s lowering interim rate
not link filed data on IPCS security
caps to FCC levels. CforAT Opening costs to the rates they charge. IPCS
Comments on ALJ Ruling at pp. 7-8. providers had the opportunity to but did
However, after further review,
not file data justifying the significantly
CforAT supported a lower rate cap of higher rates for county or city jails Cal
$0.05/minute. Reply Comments on
Advocates identified.” Decision at p. 32.
ALJ Ruling at pp. 2,
6-7(“Commission adoption of the
Staff Proposal is preferable to a delay
in imposing rate caps but does not
make the FCC rates reasonable”);
Opening Comments on Proposed
Decision at p. 3-4.
CforAT argued that ICPS providers
failed to demonstrate any nexus
between the costs of providing
service and the high rates charged to
-6-

Verified

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Intervenor’s
Claimed Contribution(s)

PROPOSED DECISION

Specific References to
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

CPUC
Discussion

The Decision held that “[t]he following
requirements for all ancillary service
fees associated with the provision of
intrastate and jurisdictionally mixed
incarcerated person’s calling services in
California are adopted: (a) imposition of
any single-call, paper bill, live agent,
and/or automated payment fees is
prohibited; (b) collection of third-party
financial transaction fees is limited to
the pass through of the exact fee only,
with no mark up, and excluding any
credit card charges, up to a cap of $6.95
per transaction; (c) collection of
government-mandated taxes and fees is
limited to the pass through of the exact
fee only, with no mark up; and,
(c) imposition of any other type of
ancillary service fee or service charge
not explicitly approved here is
prohibited.” Decision at pp. 115-116,
Ordering Paragraph 3.

Verified

CforAT noted that “Participants at
the Public Participation Hearings
described significant confusion and
bill shock regarding ancillary service
fees.” Reply Comments on ALJ
Ruling at p. 8.

The Decision stated that “[a]s noted by
CforAT, this Commission heard
significant confusion and customer
complaints about IPCS ancillary fees
during our April 28, 2021 and April 29,
2021 PPHs, making clear that the
current ancillary fees are a major burden
to families of the incarcerated as they
strive to stay in communication with
their loved ones.” Decision at p. 73.

Verified

CforAT argued that ancillary fees are
largely nonexistent for non-IPCS
offerings and, to the extent that those
fees are unjust or unreasonable, the

In prohibiting all ancillary service fees
(except for third-party financial
transaction fees and
government-mandated taxes and fees)

Verified

customers. Reply Comments on ALJ
Ruling at p. 3.
Ancillary Fees
CforAT argued that the Commission
should either limit or ban entirely
ancillary fees on IPCS. Opening
Comments on OIR at pp. 3-4.

-7-

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Intervenor’s
Claimed Contribution(s)
Commission should ban them. Reply
Comments on OIR at p. 4.

PROPOSED DECISION

Specific References to
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s)

CPUC
Discussion

the Decision notes that
“CforAT…observe[s] that
telecommunications and other utilities
provide customer service outside of
IPCS facilities for free.” Decision at
p. 67. The Decision further noted that
“[t]he costs for these services are
included in most commercial calling
rates and we have no record discussing
why such costs should not be similarly
included in intrastate IPCS calling
rates.” Decision at p. 73.

B. Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5):
Intervenor’s
Assertion

CPUC
Discussion

a. Was the Public Advocate’s Office of the Public
Utilities Commission (Cal Advocates) a party to
the proceeding?4

Yes

Yes

b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with
positions similar to yours?

Yes

Yes

c. If so, provide name of other parties:

Verified

Cal Advocates
Californians for Jail and Prison Phone Justice Coalition
Ella Baker Center
The Greenlining Institute
Media Alliance
NCIC
Prison Policy Initiative
Returning Home Foundation
The Utility Reform Network (TURN)
Worth Rises
Youth Law Center
d. Intervenor’s claim of non-duplication:

Noted

The Office of Ratepayer Advocates was renamed the Public Advocate’s Office of the Public Utilities
Commission pursuant to Senate Bill 854, which the Governor approved on June 27, 2018.
4

-8-

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

Intervenor’s
Assertion
Other parties including one of the regulated utilities (NCIC) also held
positions that overlapped with those of CforAT on certain issues,
because those parties share an interest in ensuring that rates for IPCS
are just and reasonable. CforAT prepared filings in conjunction with
our outside subject matter expert consultants, HRDC; in addition,
CforAT worked with Prison Policy Initiative, and The Utility Reform
Network when possible. Additionally, CforAT coordinated with and
engaged in other activities in this proceeding in conjunction with Cal
Advocates, Californians for Jail and Prison Phone Justice Coalition,
Ella Baker Center, The Greenlining Institute, Media Alliance, Prison
Policy Initiative, Returning Home Foundation, The Utility Reform
Network, and Worth Rises, and Youth Law Center when possible,
including participating in coordinating calls regularly scheduled by
TURN.
In order to effectively address the important effort to provide such
relief and to focus specifically on the needs of our constituency,
CforAT worked diligently to gather information and prepare material
responsive to the reasonableness of IPCS rates.
Overall, CforAT worked effectively to avoid duplication and to ensure
that our input served to complement or supplement the input of other
parties that share interests similar to our own. With our joint filings,
CforAT and the other advocates coordinated internally, assigning
various sections of document preparation to each organization with an
eye to effectively relying on the varied experience of counsel, and then
harmonizing the drafts into unified documents. This was more
efficient than would have been the case for separate filings.
Elsewhere, CforAT relied on the expertise of other parties; for
example, we consulted with experts and other organizations that are
more involved with the advancement of the rights of, and provide
protections for, incarcerated persons and have worked specifically on
phone justice issues for incarcerated persons. Overall, our work was
efficient and effective, and conducted reasonably in conjunction with
other stakeholder and advocates, without unreasonable duplication of
effort.
To the extent that CforAT took similar positions to other parties on
Phase 1 issues, this reflects the substantial shared concerns of impacted
stakeholders. In these areas of shared concern, CforAT worked to
represent the perspective of our constituency of incarcerated persons
with disabilities and their families and support networks. In order to
effectively address these important issues on behalf of our constituency

-9-

CPUC
Discussion

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

Intervenor’s
Assertion

CPUC
Discussion

and California consumers more generally, CforAT worked diligently to
act effectively to prepare material that often required intensive and
expedited effort. This was facilitated by the coordination among the
consumer advocates. To the extent that there was any modest
duplication of effort in the various filings that took place during an
extremely accelerated proceeding schedule, it does not reach the level
where CforAT’s compensation should be reduced.

PART III: REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED COMPENSATION
A. General Claim of Reasonableness (§ 1801 and § 1806):
CPUC Discussion
a. Intervenor’s claim of cost reasonableness:
This initial phase of the proceeding was focused on efforts by the
Commission to ensure that interim rates for ICPS were just and
reasonable. CforAT’s constituency of incarcerated persons with
disabilities (and relatedly, their families and support networks) are both
disproportionately low-income and also highly reliant on affordable
communications services. In order to support our constituency, CforAT
has appropriately dedicated substantial time and resources to this
proceeding.
The Commission’s efforts to address the needs of incarcerated persons
with disabilities, their families and support networks will help those
populations by reducing the burden of communications services. The
relief measures and the ongoing effort to ensure that rates for ICPS
remain just, reasonable, and affordable, as well as the commitment to
specifically address the unique communications needs of people with
disabilities, will help mitigate the societal, personal, and financial
impacts associated with incarceration.
The dollar value of relief to any individual customer or group of
customers that can be attributed specifically to the Commission’s efforts
is not clear, but reduction of phone rates to $0.07/minute and the
elimination of unreasonable ancillary fees will result in substantial cost
savings to impacted prisoners and their families. While the benefit to
CforAT’s constituency cannot be assigned a direct value, the support we
have provided to the Commission’s efforts to ensure just and reasonable

- 10 -

Noted

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

CPUC Discussion
rates for ICPS far exceeds the amount of compensation we are
requesting.
b. Reasonableness of hours claimed:

Noted

In conducting work in this proceeding, CforAT worked reasonably and
efficiently, including work in coalition with the other advocates for
incarcerated persons, with which we jointly submitted filings when
possible, and through ongoing coordination with other stakeholders. In
coordination with other organizations, the organizations divided
responsibility for drafting written submissions, and were more efficient
than would have been the case if each organization had participated
separately. CforAT took the lead in areas where detailed legal and
policy expertise, particularly in Commission proceedings, were most
significant, while relying on our outside expert (HRDC) and deferring
to other parties on issues where we had less direct expertise, such as
gathering information regarding the impacts of ICPS costs on
incarcerated populations. This shared expertise allowed us to submit
joint filings that included substantial information that the Commission
could review in developing a path forward for the regulated water
companies.
Substantial work in this proceeding was conducted by an attorney with
significant expertise in telecommunications and antitrust issues. This
expertise was specifically relied on by the Commission, even as the
attorney’s billing rate is lower than that of CforAT’s Legal Director.
Overall, this resulted in reasonable overall efficiency and cost to obtain
a substantial contribution to the proceeding so far.
c. Allocation of hours by issue:

Noted

2021 Time – Goodman (44.6 Hours)
Discovery: 5 hours (11.21%)
The issue area “Discovery” includes time spent on data requests and
participation in the ongoing proceed to address confidentiality of
relevant materials.
Coordination: 3.2 hours (7.17%)
The issue area “coordination” includes work spent on coordination with
other parties and stakeholders, including coordinating calls and
collaborating on joint drafts.
General Participation: 2 hours (4.48%)
- 11 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

CPUC Discussion
The issue area “General Participation” includes items that do not fall
under other issue categories, including procedural matters such as
scheduling and initial participation in the early phases of the
proceeding.
Interim: 24.6 hours (55.16%)
The issue area “Interim” includes time spent on CforAT’s substantive
written filings, addressing a range of issues as set forth above in our
discussion of our substantial contributions. CforAT documented
contributions on four separate issues above; while it is impossible to
separate individual entries into work on particular issues, it would be
reasonable to allocate each issue area as follows:
Jurisdiction: 15%
Competition: 35%
Incarcerated persons with disabilities: 10%
Rate caps: 20%
Ancillary charges: 20%
PD: 9.8 hours (21.97%)
The issue area “PD” includes time spent on time spent coordinating,
researching, and drafting opening and reply comments on the proposed
decision.
2020 Time – Kasnitz (45.6 Hours)
Discovery: 3.9 hours (7.89%)
Coordination: 12.2 hours (24.7%)
General Participation: 5.4 hours (10.93%)
Interim: 27.9 hours (56.48%)
2021 Time – Kasnitz (19.7 Hours)
Discovery: 1.6 hours (8.12%)
Coordination: 2.5 hours (12.69%)
General Participation: 7.2 hours (36.55%)
Interim: 7.1 hours (36.04%)

- 12 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

CPUC Discussion
PD: 1.3 hours (6.60%)
2020 Time – Ruff (4.1 Hours)
Coordination: 1.8 hours (43.90%)
General Participation: 2.3 hours (56.10%)
2021 Time – Ruff (3.3 Hours)
Discovery: 0.8 hours (24.24%)
Coordination: 1 hour (30.30%)
General Participation: 1.5 hours (45.45%)
2020 Time – Woodford (0.5 Hours)
General Participation: 0.5 hours (100%)
2021 Time – Woodford (4.6 Hours)
Coordination: 1.8 hours (39.13%)
General Participation: 2.8 hours (60.87%)
2020 Time – Wright, Outside Expert (65.1 Hours)
Coordination: 16.8 hours (25.81%)
General Participation: 47.8 hours (73.43%)
Interim: 0.5 hours (0.77%)
2021 Time – Wright (35.7 Hours)
Discovery: 0.6 hours (1.68%)
Coordination: 6.3 hours (17.65%)
General Participation: 15.9 hours (44.54%)
Interim: 8.3 hours (23.25%)
PD: 4.6 hours (12.89%)

- 13 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

CPUC Discussion
2020 Time – Marshall, Outside Expert (2.5 Hours)
Coordination: 2 hours (80.00%)
General Participation: 0.5 hours (20.00%)
2021 Time – Marshall (0.5 Hours)
Coordination: 0.4 hours (80%)
General Participation: 0.1 hours (20.00%)
B. Specific Claim:*
CLAIMED

CPUC AWARD

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES
Item

Year

Hours

Melissa W.
Kasnitz

2021

Melissa W.
Kasnitz

Basis for Rate*

Total $

Hours

Rate $

Total $

19.7

$760.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$14,972

19.7

$670.00
[1]

$13,199.00

2020

46.3

$500.00 D.20-11-012

$23,150

46.3

$500.00

$23,150.00

Paul
Goodman

2021

44.6

$650.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$28,990

44.6

$550.00
[2]

$24,530.00

Rebecca
Ruff

2021

3.3

$250.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$825

3.3

$250.00
[3]

$825.00

Rebecca
Ruff

2020

4.1

$190.00 D.21-07-025

$779

4.1

$190.00

$779.00

Kathryn
Woodford

2021

4.6

$736

4.6

$260.00
[4]

$1,196.00

5

Rate $

$160.005 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

Correct requested rate per comment in Part III.C is $260.00.

- 14 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

CLAIMED

CPUC AWARD

Kathryn
Woodford

2020

0.5

$145.00 D.20-11-012

$73

0.5

$160.00
[5]

$80.00

Paul
Wright

2021

35.7

$450.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$16,065

33.4
[6]

$450.00
[7]

$15,030.00

Paul
Wright

2020

65.1

$450.00 See Comments
Below.

$29,295

65.1

$450.00
[8]

$29,295.00

Daniel
Marshall

2021

0.5

$650.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$325

0.5

$630.00
[9]

$315.00

Daniel
Marshall

2020

2.5

$650.00 See comments
below.

$1,625

0.5
[10]

$630.00
[10]

$315.00

Subtotal: $116,835.00

Subtotal: $108,714.00

INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM PREPARATION **
Item

Year

Hours

Melissa
Kasnitz

2021

Paul
Goodman

Rate $

Basis for Rate*

Total $

Hours

Rate $

Total $

1.1

$375.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$412.50

1.1

$335.00
[1]

$368.50

2021

22.5

$325.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$7,312.5
0

16.3
[11]

$225.00
[2]

$3,667.50

Daniel
Marshall

2021

0.3

$325.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$97.50

0.3

$315.00
[6]

$94.50

Paul
Wright

2021

2.3

$225.00 Requested under
new Market Rate
Analysis. See
comments below.

$517.50

2.3

$225.00
[8]

$517.50

Subtotal: $8,340.00

Subtotal: $4,648.00

TOTAL REQUEST: $125,174.00

TOTAL AWARD: $113,362.00

*We remind all intervenors that Commission staff may audit the records and books of the intervenors to
the extent necessary to verify the basis for the award (§ 1804(d)). Intervenors must make and retain

- 15 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

I

CLAIMED

CPUC AWARD

adequate accounting and other documentation to support all claims for intervenor compensation.
Intervenor’s records should identify specific issues for which it seeks compensation, the actual time spent
by each employee or consultant, the applicable hourly rates, fees paid to consultants and any other costs for
which compensation was claimed. The records pertaining to an award of compensation shall be retained
for at least three years from the date of the final decision making the award.
**Travel and Reasonable Claim preparation time are typically compensated at ½ of preparer’s normal
hourly rate
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
Attorney

Date Admitted
to CA BAR6

Member Number

Actions Affecting Eligibility (Yes/No?)
If “Yes”, attach explanation

Melissa W. Kasnitz

1992

162679

No

Paul Goodman

2002

219086

No

Rebecca Ruff

2019

325910

No

Daniel Marshall

2002

617210
(Florida Bar)

C. Attachments Documenting Specific Claim and Comments on Part III:
Attachment
or Comment #

Description/Comment

1

Certificate of Service

2

Detailed Time Records (Merits and Compensation)

Comment

Goodman 2020 Rate:
Mr. Goodman does not claim any hours for 2020 in this proceeding.
However, for context, as Legal Director at The Greenlining Institute,
Mr. Goodman's 2020 rate was $400 (D.21-03-055, issued on March 25,
2021).

Comment

Goodman 2021 Rate:
In keeping with the provisions of Resolution ALJ-393, issued on December
22, 2020, CforAT sets forth below our justification for a newly calculated
hourly rate for Mr. Goodman based on the Market Rate Study Analysis
provided with that resolution. Our analysis under the Market Rate Study
and the associated Hourly Rate Chart is summarized as follows:
Intervenor Representative: Paul Goodman

This information may be obtained through the State Bar of California’s website at
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/MemberSearch/QuickSearch.
6

- 16 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
Labor Role: Legal--Attorney
Level: V
2021 Hourly Rate Range: $ 486.31 - $606.31 - $699.03
Requested Hourly Rate: $650
The detailed explanation of this proposed rate is as follows:
Mr. Goodman is a 1991 graduate of UC Berkeley and a 2001 graduate of
the John F. Kennedy School of Law. He was admitted to the California Bar
in 2002. Following graduation in 1999, Mr. Goodman worked as a criminal
defense attorney. From 2010-2011, he attended Santa Clara University
School of Law, where he obtained an LLM in intellectual property law.
While at Santa Clara University School of Law, he worked as a research
assistant for Professor Catherine J.K. Sandoval, focusing on antitrust and
intellectual property issues in the pharmaceutical, software, and
communications industries. Mr. Goodman is admitted to practice in all state
courts within California, as well as the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2011, after receiving his LLM, Mr. Goodman joined The Greenlining
Institute, where he worked for a decade in political and policy work focused
on communications issues. In this role, he appeared before the
Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the California
Legislature to advocate for communications policies that promoted equity
and economic opportunity for communities of color. Mr. Goodman
remained at the Greenlining Institute until 2021, first as a consultant, then as
Legal Counsel, and subsequently as Senior Legal Counsel. In 2019,
Mr. Goodman was named as Greenlining's Director, Telecommunications
and Technology Policy. As Senior Legal Counsel and Director,
Mr. Goodman managed all aspects of Greenlining’s participation before the
Commission in communications proceedings, including determinations
regarding which proceedings to join, and all strategic decision-making.
During his tenure at Greenlining, Mr. Goodman expanded Greenlining's
policy advocacy at the Commission beyond legacy voice service to include
wireless and broadband issues. Mr. Goodman also significantly increased
both the amount and scope of Greenlining's antitrust work, acting as lead
attorney for Greenlining in the Commission's Competition proceeding
(I.15-11-007) and every merger proceeding in which Greenlining was a
party (I.11-06-009; A.12-11-022; A.14-04-013 &A.14-06-012;
A.15-03-005; A.15-07-009; A.17-03-016; A.18-07-011 & A.18-07-012;
A.20-11-001). In addition to that work, Mr. Goodman has taken a leading
role on issues including Commission jurisdiction over wireless and
broadband services, broadband deployment, affordability, service quality,

- 17 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
and supplier diversity. Mr. Goodman authored Greenlining's 2015, 2018,
2019 and 2020 Supplier Diversity Report Cards.
In 2021, Mr. Goodman joined the Center for Accessible Technology as
Legal Counsel, where he advocates in communications and energy
proceedings at the Commission in support of equity and economic
opportunity for people with disabilities, including people with disabilities of
color. As of October 1, 2021, Mr. Goodman has practiced before the
Commission for over ten years, and has worked to advance the rights of,
and provide protections for, unserved and underserved communities for
almost twenty years.
Mr. Goodman served as the President of the Conference of California
Public Utility Counsel from 2019-2021, and current serves as Vice
President. Mr. Goodman represented the Center for Media Justice on the
Federal Communication Commission's Consumer Advisory Committee
from 2016-2018.
The Market Rate Study Hourly Rate Chart instructs that an Attorney at
Level V should have 15+ years of experience and have a JD degree or
equivalent. The study includes a classification specifically for “Attorney,”
which is described as a person "authorized by the California Bar to practice
law in California" and at higher experience levels has "experience with
areas of law and procedures relevant to CPUC matters, such as
environmental law or utility regulation.” Mr. Goodman generally satisfies
these requirements for a Level V Attorney, in addition to his advanced
degree and substantive work as the lead attorney on communications
proceedings.
Mr. Goodman is a well-respected attorney with an extensive depth and
breadth of experience that is highly unusual among CPUC practitioners,
including work with diverse unserved and underserved communities and on
a wide range of issues. He has consistently worked to focus the attention of
the Commission in an ongoing manner on important but previously
overlooked segments of the population, including communities of color and
the disability community, and to ensure that the Commission and the
regulated industries regularly consider the needs of those populations; this
now takes place as a matter of course, even without his direct participation
in a given proceeding.
CforAT is requesting an hourly rate for Mr. Goodman between the
“median” and the “high” rate established for a Level V Attorney, which we
submit is reasonable for his work before the Commission in 2021.

- 18 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
Accordingly, CforAT requests that the Commission authorize a 2021 hourly
rate of $650 for Mr. Goodman. In support of this request, as specified in
Resolution ALJ-393, a current resume for Mr. Goodman is attached.

A

Resume for Paul Goodman

Comment

Kasnitz 2021 Rate: On May 7, 2021, CforAT filed an intervenor
compensation claim in A.19-09-014 that included a request that the
Commission adopt an hourly rate of $760 for CforAT’s Legal Director,
Melissa W. Kasnitz, based on the Market Rate Study and guidance adopted
in Resolution ALJ-393, issued on December 22, 2020. The Commission has
not yet acted on that intervenor compensation claim. Rather than repeat the
same showing here for the requested hourly rate for Ms. Kasnitz, CforAT
refers the Commission to the showing presented in A.19-09-014.

Comment

Ruff 2021 Rate: On June 24, 2021, CforAT filed an intervenor
compensation claim in R.18-03-011 that included a request that the
Commission adopt an hourly rate of $250 for CforAT’s Fellowship
Attorney Rebecca Ruff, based on the Market Rate Study and guidance
adopted in Resolution ALJ-393, issued on December 22, 2020. The
Commission has not yet acted on that intervenor compensation claim.
Rather than repeat the same showing here for the requested hourly rate for
Ms. Ruff, CforAT refers the Commission to the showing presented in
R.18-03-011.

Comment

Wright 2020 Rate:
Resolution ALJ-387 adopts intervenor compensation rates for 2020.
ALJ-387 lists the range for an expert with 13 or more years of experience as
$190-465. Given Mr. Wright’s qualifications (set forth below in
conjunction with the justification for a rate under the new Market Rate
Study for 2021) and 31 years of experience, CforAT requests that the
Commission authorize a 2020 hourly rate of $450 for Mr. Wright.

Comment

Wright 2021 Rate: [Lower in 2021 than in 2020?]
In keeping with the provisions of Resolution ALJ-393, issued on December
22, 2020, CforAT sets forth below our justification for a newly calculated
hourly rate for Mr. Wright based on the Market Rate Study Analysis
provided with that resolution. Our analysis under the Market Rate Study
and the associated Hourly Rate Chart is summarized as follows:
Intervenor Representative: Paul Wright, Executive Director, Human
Rights Defense Center (Consultant to CforAT)
Labor Role: Advocate--Executive Director
Level: V
- 19 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
2021 Hourly Rate Range: $169.05 - $283.39 - $442.37
Requested Hourly Rate: $450
The detailed explanation of this proposed rate is as follows:
Mr. Wright is the Executive Director of the Human Rights Defense Center
(HRDC), an organization with substantial expertise on issues relevant to
people who are incarcerated. The Center for Accessible Technology
(CforAT) is working with HRDC, with HRDC serving as a subject matter
expert in the proceeding to address just and reasonable rates for
communications services for incarcerated populations in California.
Mr. Wright is a 1986 graduate of the University of Maryland. A former
prisoner, Mr. Wright was imprisoned for 17 years in Washington state until
his release in 2003. In 1990, while he was incarcerated, Mr. Wright
founded Prisoners’ Legal News (PLN), with the original purpose of
publishing a monthly newsletter to give a voice to prisoners. From the
modest beginnings of a prison-based newsletter with a $50 budget and an
all-volunteer grassroots base, Mr. Wright grew the organization (later
renamed the Human Rights Defense Center, or HRDC) into a national
501(c)(3) organization with 18 employees, including four staff attorneys.
HRDC is headquartered in Lake Worth, Florida and has offices in Seattle,
Washington; Nashville, Tennessee; and Washington, D.C.
Mr. Wright has held the position of founder and executive director of
PLN/HRDC since 1990. Mr. Wright has co-authored three PLN
anthologies: The Celling of America: An Inside Look at the U.S. Prison
Industry (Common Courage, 1998); Prison Nation: The Warehousing of
America's Poor (Routledge, 2003); and Prison Profiteers: Who Makes
Money from Mass Imprisonment (New Press, 2008).
Under Mr. Wright’s leadership, HRDC currently distributes around 50
different criminal justice, legal and self-help titles, and continues to publish
Prison Legal News, which has become a 72-page monthly publication with
subscribers in all 50 states and internationally. HRDC also publishes
Criminal Legal News, which reports on criminal case law and news related
to prosecutors, policing and sentencing. In addition to publishing, HRDC
engages in litigation in support of prisoner rights, with a robust litigation
project that has filed suit against prison and jail officials nationwide.
During and since his incarceration, Mr. Wright has successfully litigated a
wide variety of censorship and public records cases against prison systems
around the country, both as a pro se plaintiff and on behalf of PLN.

- 20 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
In 2011, under Mr. Wright’s leadership, HRDC co-founded the national
Campaign for Prison Phone Justice (www.phonejustice.org,
www.prisonphonejustice.org), which seeks to reduce the cost of phone calls
made by incarcerated persons. This resource was cited by the Commission
when it issued the Order Instituting Rulemaking that initiated the prison
phone rates proceeding for which HRDC is consulting. HRDC has
maintained the campaign since its founding. Additionally, HRDC founded
the Stop Prison Profiteering campaign (www.stopprisonprofiteering.org),
which seeks to end the financial exploitation of prisoners and their families
through fee-based video visitation, debit release cards and money transfer
fees, among other services, and the Prison Ecology Project
(www.prisonecology.org), which examines the intersection between
criminal justice and environmental justice.
Mr. Wright served as the National Lawyers Guild Jailhouse Lawyer co-vice
president (1995-2008). He is a 2005 Petra Fellow, and he has been granted
multiple awards and honors, including:








Freedom Fighter of the Month, July 2006, from High Times
Magazine;
The James Madison Award, 2007, from the Washington Coalition
for Open Government;
The Arthur Kinoy Award, 2008 (inaugural recipient), from the
National Lawyers Guild;
Distinguished Public Interest Service Award, 2011, from the City of
New York Law School;
The Julio Medina Freedom Award, 2017, from Citizens Against
Recidivism;
A New York City Council Citation, 2017;
The Frederick Douglas Award, 2018, from the Frederick Douglass
Family Initiatives and the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at
American University in Washington DC.

Mr. Wright also currently serves as the National Vice President of the
National Police Accountability Project.
The Commission’s Market Rate Study Hourly Rate Chart instructs that an
Advocate at Level V should have 15+ years of experience; it does not
require the person in this role to have a JD degree or to be licensed to
practice law. The study includes a classification specifically for “Executive
Director,” which is described as a person who “[p]rovides overall direction
and guidance to a non-profit organization's programs,” is “[r]esponsible for
the success of special events, community outreach initiatives, and
- 21 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
fundraising activities,” “[a]cts as a spokesperson and represents the
organization's programs to the public,” and “[a]ssesses needs and ensures
that program objectives are met, initiates changes to maintain member
satisfaction and engagement.” Mr. Wright generally satisfies these
requirements for a Level V Advocate—Executive Director.
As of 1990 Mr. Wright has worked to advance the rights and provide
protections for incarcerated persons for 31 years and has worked
specifically on phone justice issues for incarcerated persons for at least a
decade. He has served as HRDC’s Executive Director for 31 years. In the
past, Mr. Wright’s has been compensated at an hourly rate for work done in
California with the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
of $455.00.
Resolution ALJ-387 adopts intervenor compensation rates for 2020.
ALJ-387 lists the range for an expert with 13 or more years of experience as
$190-465. Given Mr. Wright’s qualifications and 31 years of experience,
CforAT requests that the Commission authorize a 2020 hourly rate of $450
for Mr. Wright.
CforAT is requesting an 2021 hourly rate for Mr. Wright at the “high” rate
established for a Level V Executive Director, which is consistent with his
standard rate and which we submit is reasonable for his work before the
Commission in 2021. Accordingly, CforAT requests that the Commission
authorize a 2021 hourly rate of $450 for Mr. Wright. In support of this
request, as specified in Resolution ALJ-393, a current resume for
Mr. Wright is attached.

B
Comment

Resume for Paul Wright
Marshall 2020 Rate: [What rate is requested for 2020?]
Resolution ALJ-387 adopts intervenor compensation rates for 2020.
ALJ-387 lists the range for an attorney with 13 or more years of experience
as $360- $630. Given Mr. Marshall’s qualifications (set forth below in
conjunction with the justification for a rate under the new Market Rate
Study for 2021) and 31 years of experience, CforAT requests that the
Commission authorize a 2020 hourly rate of $650 for Mr. Marshall.

Comment

Marshall 2021 Rate:
In keeping with the provisions of Resolution ALJ-393, issued on December
22, 2020, CforAT sets forth below our justification for a newly calculated
hourly rate for Mr. Marshall in 2021 based on the Market Rate Study

- 22 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
Analysis provided with that resolution. Our analysis under the Market Rate
Study and the associated Hourly Rate Chart is summarized as follows:
Intervenor Representative: Daniel Marshall, Litigation Director,
Human Rights Defense Center (Consultant to CforAT).
Labor Role: Legal--Legal Director
Level: IV
2021 Hourly Rate Range: $469.24 - $622.90 - $783.36
Requested Hourly Rate: $650
The detailed explanation of this proposed rate is as follows:
Mr. Marshall is a 1986 graduate of Colgate University and a 2002 graduate
of University of Connecticut School of Law. He was admitted to the
Florida Bar in 2002, and was board certified in criminal trail law by the
Florida Bar in 2012. Mr. Marshall is admitted to practice in all Florida state
courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern and Southern Districts of Florida, the Eastern District of Michigan
and the U.S. District Court for New Mexico.
After earning his J.D., Mr. Marshall worked at the Office of the Public
Defender in West Palm Beach, Florida for nearly nine years handling
felonies, misdemeanors, juvenile delinquency, and appellate cases. He was
the chief of a felony division for several years before becoming the county
court resource director, in charge of training more than two dozen new
attorneys in the office. After leaving the public defender’s office in 2011,
Mr. Marshall went into private practice focusing on criminal defense and
civil litigation.
In 2017, Mr. Marshall joined the Human Rights Defense Center as
Litigation Director.
Mr. Marshall is a member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers and the National Police Accountability Project.
The Market Rate Study Hourly Rate Chart includes a classification
specifically for “Legal—Legal Director,” which is described as a person
"authorized by the California Bar to practice law in California" and who at
higher experience levels has "experience with areas of law and procedures
relevant to CPUC matters, such as environmental law or utility regulation.”
However, in Resolution ALJ-393, the Commission “modified the definition
of labor roles for Legal Directors and Attorneys to include “licensing by any
jurisdiction within the United States.” Mr. Marshall has over 19 years of

- 23 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
experience as an attorney in the area of criminal law, and has worked for
HRDC for the past four years, giving him specific experience in legal
matters relating to the rights of incarcerated persons. Accordingly,
Mr. Marshall generally meets the requirements of Legal—Legal Director
Level IV.
Resolution ALJ-387 adopts intervenor compensation rates for 2020.
ALJ-387 lists the range for an attorney with 13 or more years of experience
as $360-$630. Given Mr. Wright’s qualifications and over years of
experience, CforAT requests that the Commission authorize a 2020 hourly
rate of $650 for Mr. Marshall.
CforAT is requesting an hourly rate for Mr. Marshall at “middle” rate
established for a Level IV Legal Director, which we submit is reasonable
based on his 19 years of experience as an attorney and for his specialized
work in a proceeding before the Commission in 2021 in which his area of
expertise is directly relevant. Accordingly, CforAT requests that the
Commission authorize a 2021 hourly rate of $650 for Mr. Marshall. In
support of this request, as specified in Resolution ALJ-393, a current
resume for Mr. Marshall is attached.

C
Comment

Resume for Daniel Marshall
Woodford 2021 Rate:
In keeping with the provisions of Resolution ALJ-393, issued on December
22, 2020, CforAT sets forth below our justification for a newly calculated
hourly rate for Ms. Woodford in 2021 based on the Market Rate Study
Analysis provided with that resolution. Our analysis under the Market Rate
Study and the associated Hourly Rate Chart is summarized as follows:
Intervenor Representative: Kate Woodford
Labor Role: Expert—Public Policy Analyst
Level: III
2021 Hourly Rate Range: $231.53 - $330.43 - $437.05
Requested Hourly Rate: $260
The detailed explanation of this proposed rate is as follows:
Ms. Woodford is a 2011 graduate of Agnes Scott College. The primary
focus of Ms. Woodford’s academic work and thesis were the disparities
experienced by persons with vision impairments in employment, research
participation and social inclusion compared to non-disabled populations.

- 24 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

Attachment
or Comment #

PROPOSED DECISION

Description/Comment
Ms. Woodford presented her senior thesis, “Theory vs. Practicality:
Contrasting Traditional Rehabilitation Practices Against Success Strategies
Used by the Blind” at the 2010 CSUN Assistive Technology Conference.
She has presented her research at several Sociological and Disability-related
conferences and has worked as a research assistant for the Veteran’s
Administration in Atlanta. In addition to her academic background and
professional experience, Ms. Woodford is an individual with a significant
vision impairment.
Ms. Woodford began working as a consultant for the Center for Accessible
Technology in February 2015. In 2018, she took the position of Staff
Policy Analyst at CforAT. Both in her previous role as a consultant and her
current role as Staff Policy Analyst, Ms. Woodford’s work includes
reviewing CPUC proceedings for CforAT’s legal department to provide
social and needs evaluations of Access and Functional Needs populations.
Ms. Woodford also designs, conducts & presents qualitative interviews &
surveys in support of CforAT’s testimony in Commission proceedings.
Additionally, Ms. Woodford serves as CforAT’s representative on multiple
working groups and attends various presentations on behalf of CforAT to
inform our policy positions in proceeding and in our general work in
support of Center for Accessible Technology’s constituency. This includes
her participation as the Deaf/Disabled Representative on the Universal
LifeLine Telephone Service Advisory Committee, where Ms. Woodford has
served since 2019.
The Market Rate Study Hourly Rate Chart instructs that an Expert at Level
III should have 5-10 years of experience and have a bachelor’s degree or
equivalent. The study includes a classification specifically for “Expert—
Public Policy Analyst,” which is described as a person that "[r]eviews the
impact of state government policies and regulations,” “[a]nalyzes proposed
legislative actions and determines the potential impact,” and “[r]eviews
policies, plans, and programs to ensure consistency with corresponding
government regulations and laws.” Ms. Woodford generally meets the
requirements of Expert-Public Policy Analyst Level III.
CforAT is requesting an hourly rate for Ms. Woodford between the “low”
and “medium” rate established for a Level III Public Policy Analyst, which
we submit is reasonable based on her work before the Commission in 2021.
Accordingly, CforAT requests that the Commission authorize a 2021 hourly
rate of $260 for Ms. Woodford. In support of this request, as specified in
Resolution ALJ-393, a current resume for Ms. Woodford is attached.

D

Resume for Kathryn Woodford

- 25 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

D. CPUC Comments, Disallowances, and Adjustments
Item

Reason

[1] Melissa Kasnitz
2021 Rate

D.22-09-022 verified a 2021 rate of $670.00 for Melissa Kasnitz.
We apply the same rate here.

[2] Paul Goodman
2021 Rate

D.23-03-030 verified a 2021 rate of $550.00 for Paul Goodman.
We apply the same rate here.

[3] Rebecca Ruff
2021 Hourly Rate

D.22-09-022 verified a 2021 rate of $250.00 for Rebecca Ruff.
We apply the same rate here.

[4] Kate Woodford
2021 Rate

D.22-09-022 verified a 2021 rate of $160.00 for Kate Woodford.
We apply the same rate here.

[5] Kate Woodford
2020 Rate

D.22-09-022 verified a 2021 rate of $260.00 for Kate Woodford.
We apply the same rate here.

[6] Reduction of
2021 Hours for
Paul Wright

After review of the submitted timesheets, four entries were found to be
clerical or unproductive in nature:
3/1/2021 (0.4 hours) - Read Daily news article re GTL CA Rate
reduction, emailed to team
3/3/2021 (0.4 hours) - Read Orange Register article on CDCR phone
rates, emailed to M. Kasnitz
3/11/2021 (1.0 hours) - Reviewed CPUC website for posting comments
3/12/2021 (0.5 hours) - Reviewed CPUC website docket and interface
Per the Intervenor Compensation Program Guide at p.12, “The CPUC
does not compensate for the time spent on clerical and administrative
tasks…” and awards are based on substantial contributions to the
overall decision. Due to the nature of these entries, we deduct the 2.3
hours from Paul Wright’s 2021 hours, bringing the total to 33.4 hours.

[7] Paul Wright
2021 Rate

CforAT requested a 2021 rate of $450.00 for Paul Wright. Based on
17+ years of relevant experience at the time of filing; we find the rate
to be reasonable and adopt it here.

[8] Paul Wright
2020 Rate

CforAT requested a 2020 rate of $450.00 for Paul Wright. Based on
17+ years of relevant experience at the time of filing, we find the rate
to be reasonable and adopt it here.

[9] Daniel Marshall
2021 Rate and
Reduction for
Clerical Work

CforAT requested a 2021 rate of $650.00 for Daniel Marshall.
As a consultant, the reasonableness of rates is considered to be the “fee
paid to consultant[s],” per the Intervenor Compensation Program Guide

- 26 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

Item

Reason
at p.24. Therefore, we maintain the 2020 rate of $630.00 established in
Comment [10] below to maintain consistency.

[10] Daniel Marshall CforAT requested a 2020 rate of $650.00 based on Resolution
ALJ-387. We note the range for Attorneys is $360.00 - $630.00. Based
2020 Rate
on the submitted resumes and relevant experience of 17+ years at the
time of filing for Daniel Marshall, we adopt a 2020 rate of $630.00 and
apply it here.
During review of the submitted timesheets, three entries regarding the
consultant agreement were on 10/13/2020, 10/16/2020 and 10/20/2020,
all of which are considered clerical and could not have substantially
contributed to the overall decision. Per the Intervenor Compensation
Program Guide at p. 12, “The CPUC does not compensate for the time
spent on clerical and administrative tasks as these fees are subsumed in
the fees paid to attorneys.” We reduce the 2.0 hours associated with the
consultant contract, bringing Daniel Marshall’s 2020 total to 0.5. We
remind CforAT that awards are based on efforts that substantially
contributed to the overall decision and fees paid to consultants.
[11] Paul Goodman
Intervenor
Compensation
Claim Preparation
Hours Reduction

Review of the submitted timesheets found 7.8 hours of the requested
time associated with Intervenor Compensation Claim Preparation
included collaboration with Melissa Kasnitz, therefore, we find the
requested 22.5 hours for Intervenor Claim preparation to be excessive.
We are deducting the 6.2 hours for the 10/21/2022 entry on the
timesheets and remind CforAT reasonable participation must be
effective and efficient, as described in the Intervenor Compensation
Program guide at p.21.

PART IV: OPPOSITIONS AND COMMENTS
Within 30 days after service of this Claim, Commission Staff
or any other party may file a response to the Claim (see § 1804(c))
A. Opposition: Did any party oppose the Claim?

No

B. Comment Period: Was the 30-day comment period waived (see
Rule 14.6(c)(6))?

Yes

- 27 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

Center for Accessible Technology has made a substantial contribution to D.21-07-029.

2.

The requested hourly rates for Center for Accessible Technology’s representatives, as
adjusted herein, are comparable to market rates paid to experts and advocates having
comparable training and experience and offering similar services.

3.

The claimed costs and expenses are reasonable and commensurate with the work
performed.

4.

The total of reasonable compensation is $113,362.00.
CONCLUSION OF LAW

1.

The Claim, with any adjustment set forth above, satisfies all requirements of Pub. Util.
Code §§ 1801-1812.
ORDER

1.

Center for Accessible Technology shall be awarded $113,362.00.

2.

Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, Competitive Local Carriers,
Competitive Local Resellers, Local Exchange Carriers, Interexchange Carriers,
Interexchange Resellers, and Digital Voice Service Registrants shall pay Center for
Accessible Technology their respective shares of the award, based on their
California-jurisdictional telecommunication revenues for the 2021 calendar year, to reflect
the year in which the proceeding was primarily litigated. If such data are unavailable, the
most recent telecommunication revenue data shall be used. Payment of the award shall
include compound interest at the rate earned on prime, three-month non-financial
commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, beginning
January 5, 2022, the 75th day after the filing of Center for Accessible Technology’s request,
and continuing until full payment is made.

3.

The comment period for today’s decision is waived.
This decision is effective today.
Dated ____________________, at San Francisco, California.

- 28 -

R.20-10-002 ALJ/RWH/nd3

PROPOSED DECISION

APPENDIX
Compensation Decision Summary Information
Compensation Decision:
Contribution Decision(s):
Proceeding(s):
Author:
Payer(s):

I Modifies Decision?

I

No

D2108037
R2010002
ALJ Haga
Competitive Local Carriers, Competitive Local Resellers, Local Exchange
Carriers, Interexchange Carriers, Interexchange Resellers, and Digital
Voice Service Registrants
Intervenor Information

Intervenor
Center for
Accessible
Technology

Date Claim Filed
10/22/21

Amount
Requested
$125,174.00

Amount
Awarded
$113,362.00

Multiplier?
N/A

Reason Change/
Disallowance
See Part III.D, CPUC
Comments,
Disallowances and
Adjustments

Hourly Fee Information
First Name
Melissa
Melissa
Paul
Rebecca
Kathryn
Kathryn

Last Name
Kasnitz
Kasnitz
Goodman
Ruff
Woodford
Woodford

Paul
Paul

Wright
Wright

Daniel
Daniel

Marshall
Marshall

Attorney, Expert,
or Advocate
Attorney
Legal Director
Attorney
Attorney
Expert
ExpertPublic Policy Analyst
Expert
AdvocateExecutive Director
Attorney
Attorney

Hourly
Fee Requested
$500
$760
$650
$190
$145
$260

Year Hourly
Fee Requested
2020
2021
2021
2020
2020
2021

Hourly
Fee Adopted
$500.00
$670.00
$530.00
$190.00
$160.00
$260.00

$450
$450

2020
2021

$450.00
$450.00

$650
$650

2020
2021

$630.00
$650.00

(END OF APPENDIX)