3. Substantial Contribution
In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. First, we look at whether the Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (§ 1802(i).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we look at whether the customer's participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party. (§§ 1801.3(f) and 1802.5.)
As described in § 1802(i), the assessment of whether the customer made a substantial contribution requires the exercise of judgment:
In assessing whether the customer meets this standard, the Commission typically reviews the record, composed in part of pleadings of the customer and, in litigated matters, the hearing transcripts, and compares it to the findings, conclusions, and orders in the decision to which the customer asserts it contributed. It is then a matter of judgment as to whether the customer's presentation substantially assisted the Commission.4
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the contributions WEM claims to have made to the proceeding.
WEM was an active party in this proceeding. In addition to attending workshops, WEM cross-examined several witnesses, and filed testimony, briefs, and comments on the Draft Decision. The LTPPs submitted by PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E showed the utilities, for the most part, filling and planning to fill their projected net short positions with conventional resources without providing a highly developed analysis to support this strategy. The analysis by WEM addressed issues related to long-term procurement by these utilities.5
WEM's analysis examined PG&E's greenhouse gas emissions, raised questions about energy efficiency in the load forecasts, questioned PG&E's use of Energy Commission forecasts, and identified errors in PG&E's load projections for Community Choice. On cross-examination WEM raised issues related to PG&E's compliance with Assembly Bill 32 greenhouse gas reduction requirements, utilization of energy efficiency as procurement resources, uncertainty about meeting energy efficiency targets, and PG&E's commitment to meet loading order requirements.
PG&E argues that WEM did not make a substantial contribution to D.07-12-052 and asserts the following: 1) The fact that WEM is only referred to once in D.07-12-052 shows that WEM did not make a substantial contribution to the proceeding; 2) The testimony WEM submitted consisted of unsupported and speculative statements that was neither cited nor referred to in D.07-12-052; 3) WEM often focused on issues that were outside the scope of the hearing and did not make a substantial contribution during hearings; 4) The arguments made by WEM in briefs were either implicitly rejected by D.07-12-052, or were duplicative of other parties' positions; and 5) WEM claims to have made substantial contributions on issues that were either outside the scope of the proceeding, were not adopted by D.07-12-052, or that were only briefly addressed by WEM.6
The flaw we find in PG&E's argument is three-fold. First, PG&E parses and selectively reviews WEM's participation. By way of example, PG&E disputes WEM's claim to have made a contribution on the issue of GHGs where it asserts that "WEM ignores the fact that GHG issues were determined to be outside the scope of the hearing and were instead reserved for briefing." However, PG&E does not dispute that WEM properly raised this issue in its brief.
Second, the fact that WEM is not specifically credited with making a substantial contribution on a particular issue does not mean that a substantial contribution was not made. Where a decision states a position that is consistent with that asserted by a party we may infer that the party made a contribution on that issue. Here for example, WEM notes that it pointed out errors in PG&E's rebuttal to the National Resource Defense Counsel (NRDC) and that D.07-12-052 stated that "[i]t is reasonable to direct the IOUs to correct their LTPPs to indicate how they should fill their net short positions..." Similarly, WEM made a procedural recommendation to broaden the scope of hearings to include energy efficiency. Though WEM was not specifically identified as the source of this proposal, the proceeding was broadened in a manner consistent with WEM's recommendation. Related, it was WEM that raised the question of whether or not PG&E would fully utilize energy efficiency as procurement resources and identified uncertainty about whether PG&E would meet the energy efficiency targets.
Finally, as WEM notes, "an intervenor may make a substantial contribution by `providing a unique perspective that enriched the Commission's deliberations and the record' even if it did not adopt any of the customer's recommendations. (WEM Request for Compensation, at 4, citing D.05-06-027.) Among other things, WEM is a network of women and men who look at energy issues from a woman's point of view and work for a rapid transition to an efficient, renewable energy system. WEM's criticism of PG&E's efforts in that area is consistent with WEM's community base and organizational mission. While WEM may not be as skilled an advocate as PG&E or other intervenors, it brings an important, valuable perspective to the proceeding. This perspective, coupled with the more tangible contributions identified above, leads us to conclude that WEM substantially contributed to the proceeding.
4 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
5 While WEM's analysis focused on PG&E's long-term procurement plan, the majority of WEM's arguments are relevant to all the investor-owned utilities.
6 WEM disputes PG&E's claims and notes that it identified no less than 11 major findings in the decision and 1 important procedural issue where the Commission adopted WEM's recommendations.
