4. Substantial Contribution
In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, we assess whether the Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (See § 1802(i).) Second, we consider, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, whether the customer's participation materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision. (See §§ 1802(i) and 1802.5.) As described in § 1802(i), the assessment of whether the customer made a substantial contribution requires the exercise of judgment:
UCAN describes its contributions as follows:
"First, UCAN examined the cost-effectiveness of the application and found a number of problems with SDG&E's representations ... .
"Secondly, UCAN focused upon the functionality requirement of the Commission for AMI applications. In its testimony, UCAN raised concerns about whether the proposed technologies in its AMI Project would accomplish meeting the Commission's functionality goals. It documented missed opportunities and the unduly narrow scope of SDG&E's AMI application. In support of this position, UCAN cosponsored a joint study conducted by University of San Diego (Smart Grid study) and presented a summary of its findings in the testimony of Michael Shames ... .
"Finally, UCAN also participated in the lengthy settlement talks that led to the all-party settlement submitted to the Commission on March 14, 2007 and adopted by the Commission on April 12, 2007 in D.07-03-048."2
Despite the fact that the deployment phase of this case was settled, parties provided testimony, and the final decision outlines the parties' litigation positions and uses them in an evaluation of SDG&E's original proposal. As UCAN points out in its request, the Commission cites UCAN's contributions throughout the analysis of SDG&E's proposal in D.07-04-043. The Commission also acknowledges the contribution of the Smart Grid study initiated by UCAN (and later joined by SDG&E) in illustrating possible applications of AMI and related technology beyond the specific proposal advocated by SDG&E. However, little of these potential improvements were integrated into the settlement agreement ultimately signed by SDG&E.
In addition, the settlement agreement adopted in D.07-04-043 addressed both of the major issues UCAN raised in its testimony, including UCAN's questions about the cost-effectiveness of SDG&E's original proposal and about whether SDG&E's proposed functionality was sufficient to meet the Commission's expressed goals. Few of UCAN's recommendations for addressing these concerns, especially those stemming from the Smart Grid study, were incorporated in the settlement and approved by the Commission in D.07-04-043.3
After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.
2 UCAN Request, p. 2.
3 UCAN recommendations for broadband capability and implementation of smart grid features, greater use of distributed combined heat and power projects and others were not included in the settlement agreement. The agreement included the addition of only a few technological advances and functionality, including the use of a Home Area Network chip and remote shut off capability, which did necessarily originate in the EPIC smart grid study.
