Wilner, a nonattorney representing CLAM, 2 investigated the alleged failure of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (Pacific) to collect required tariff charges for the removal and replacement of certain equipment on the premises of commercial customers. We further conclude that in the former proceedings nonattorneys may be awarded fees and costs for their services in a representative capacity.ĭavid L.

1 We conclude that the commission has jurisdiction to award attorney fees and costs pursuant to the equitable “common fund” doctrine in quasi-judicial reparation proceedings, but not in quasi-legislative ratemaking proceedings. The commission held in both cases that it lacked the power to award such fees and costs under any statute or equitable theory.

23868) raises the issue whether the commission has authority to award attorney fees and costs in quasi-legislative ratemaking proceedings. Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) v. 23863) presents two questions: first, does the commission possess the power to award attorney fees and costs in quasi-judicial reparation proceedings and second, may a nonattorney be awarded fees and costs when he serves in a representative capacity in such proceedings. The primary issue in these two consolidated proceedings is whether the Public Utilities Commission (commission) has authority to award attorney fees and costs to public interest participants in its proceedings.Ĭonsumers Lobby Against Monopolies (CLAM) v. Moore and Christopher Lee Rasmussen, San Francisco, for real party in interest. McCrea, Las Vegas, Nev., as amicus curiae on behalf of respondent. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, Respondent PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. TOWARD UTILITY RATE NORMALIZATION, Petitioner, v. PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Real Party in Interest. CONSUMERS LOBBY AGAINST MONOPOLIES et al., Petitioners, v.

Public utilities code section 783