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.

Although there were several other intervenors who participated in this proceeding, CFC submits that its work did not duplicate the work of others. In support of this claim it offers the following:

· CFC expressed its concern about ratepayer funding of the CICS in its first set and comments and throughout the proceeding. It did not take part in workshops where parties discussed "CICS's proposed mission and role, its governance and accountability, proposed treatment of intellectual property and indirect cost accounting,"³⁴ nor did it file Post-Workshop Comments on those subjects as permitted by the ALJ. Thus, there was no duplication of work of others who supported the creation of the CICS.

· Although TURN, DRA and CFC all agreed that the creation of CICS was best left to the Legislature, TURN discussed the ramifications of adding a CICS fee to utility rates, and Commission initiatives which ran counter to the goals of CICS. Unlike CFC, TURN did not raise issues of redundancy or the preemptive effect of AB 32.

· CFC did not duplicate the work of Greenlining, which urged that CICS must be directed by an entity that is committed to representing and serving California's diverse constituency, and minority populations. Greenlining also argued that CICS should be required to secure private funding before using ratepayer money. CFC specifically did not address either of these issues.

· UCAN intervened in the proceeding after the Proposed Decision was issued to argue that it was illegal for the Commission to collect funds to be administered by a non-utility entity, unless there was direct Commission oversight and budgetary approval for the expenditures. CFC submitted comments at the same time which also found fault with the lack of standards to guide the CICS staff. CFC also questioned the staff's ability to perform all the tasks delegated to it on a limited budget.³⁵

In this proceeding, the other intervenors, the California Council on Science and Technology, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Community Environmental Council all supported the creation of CICS. CFC opposed the creation of CICS and did not duplicate the efforts of these participants. We affirm that CFC took reasonable steps to avoid duplicating the efforts of other parties in this proceeding.

³⁴ ALJ's Ruling Inviting Workshop Comments, issued on December 28, 2007.

³⁵ CFC Comments on Proposed Decision, filed on February 29, 2008 at 6-7.