4. Contributions of Other Parties

Section 1801.3(f) requires an intervenor to avoid participation that duplicates that of similar interests otherwise adequately represented by another party, or participation unnecessary for a fair determination of the proceeding. Section 1802.5, however, allows an intervenor to be eligible for full compensation where its participation materially supplements, complements, or contributes to the presentation of another party if that participation makes a substantial contribution to the Commission order.

CFC believes its compensation should not be reduced for duplication of other parties' presentations. CFC states that it discussed issues with The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and was aware of DRA's position, voiced during workshops, and avoided duplicating issues with which they were more familiar, i.e., the allocation of the costs of the DWR contacts and the interaction of the novation process with the procurement review proceeding.

We find some duplication between CFC and other parties with respect to the positions for which CFC claims that it made a significant contribution. CFC's record reflects 1.6 hours spent conversing with TURN by email concerning the issues in the proceeding. CFC does not identify communications with any other parties with whom it shared complimentary or overlapping positions. CFC claims that it was aware of DRA's position, as voiced during workshops. CFC claims that it avoided duplicating issues with which DRA and TURN were more familiar (i.e., cost allocations and the interaction between procurement and novation). CFC does not identify any attempts to communicate with the IOUs in order to coordinate and avoid duplication on commonly held positions. If CFC attempted to coordinate with the IOUS in order to avoid undue duplication on such issues, its documented records do not show such attempts at coordination. Moreover, SCE's express opposition would indicate that CFC did not attempt to coordinate with SCE.

Nonetheless, in a proceeding such as this, which involved multiple participants, it is often impossible to completely avoid duplication of the work of other parties. CFC claims that it took reasonable steps so that its work served to supplement the showing of other parties in this proceeding. We conclude that at least on some of the issues, CFC presented additional independent analysis that supplemented the analysis of the other parties. For example, although multiple parties argued that it was unlikely that full novation of contracts would be achieved by January 1, 2010, CFC supplemented the record with additional information on impediments relating to specific contracts that did not duplicate what other parties provided. Therefore, although there was some overlap in the presentation of positions, CFC's contribution was useful in the development of a complete record on the potential impediments to novation, even though CFC's proposal to terminate the proceeding was rejected. As discussed in Section 5 below, we have disallowed 25% from the total CFC claim. This 25% disallowance takes into account the duplication of efforts for which intervenor compensation will not be authorized.