4. Contributions to Resolution of Issues

Pursuant to Section 1802(h), a party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in various ways. It may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision, or it may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the Commission adopted. A substantial contribution includes evidence or argument that supports part of the decision even if the Commission does not adopt a party's position in total. The Commission has provided compensation even when the position advanced by the intervenor is rejected.² It has also provided compensation for work done on issues that were ultimately deferred to another proceeding, at the request of the parties, in order to facilitate timely resolution of more pressing issues. (See D.01-11-053.)

A key event in the procedural history of this proceeding is TURN's filing of the application for rehearing in October 1996. Staff attorney Peter Allen, who addressed cost responsibility and ratemaking for Kramer-Victor Project costs, performed most of TURN's work prior to that event. After the Commission granted rehearing, Weil performed most of TURN's work, which addressed the reasonableness of project costs, Rule 1 allegations, and the eventual settlement. Because DRA had agreed to recovery of costs in rates before TURN intervened, TURN took the lead role in that issue. TURN did not prevail on every issue litigated prior to the decision that granted rehearing. However, approval of the settlement between Edison and TURN in D.00-06-054 resolved all issues contested after the rehearing process began.

Since the filing of the November 1993 petition for modification, the principal issue requiring Commission resolution has been rate recovery of Edison's costs for the cancelled Kramer-Victor Project. TURN contributed to D.96-09-039 by its participation in hearing and its briefs. At that time, TURN was the only party that opposed rate recovery of project costs. In D.96-09-039, TURN prevailed in its opposition to relieving Luz of a share of project costs. After rehearing, the settlement between Edison and TURN resolved all ratemaking issues, including the abandoned plant treatment authorized in D.96-09-039. On the whole, the work of TURN attorneys Allen, Florio and Finkelstein in 1995 and 1996 made substantial contributions to issues that the Commission addressed in D.96-09-039 and finally resolved in D.00-06-054.

After the Commission ordered rehearing of D.96-09-039, all of the work of Weil and TURN attorneys Finkelstein and Florio contributed to D.00-06-054, which adopted the ratemaking settlement. The settlement saves ratepayers at least $2.15 million, before adjustment for California jurisdictional factor. The disallowed amount is more than 18 times TURN's requested compensation.

In sum, the Commission adopted positions, reasoning, and recommendations of TURN on several major issues in these proceedings. We therefore find that TURN has made substantial contributions in the resolution of these matters.