5. Substantial Contribution
We look at several things when evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding. 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.10
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions Sustainable Conservation made to the proceeding.
Sustainable Conservation's involvement in this proceeding was focused on issues relating to tariffs and contracts for biogas digesters. Sustainable Conservation participated in this proceeding through workshop participation and by submitting comments and reply comments on utility proposals and the proposed decision. Additionally, they coordinated efforts with other stakeholders to minimize duplication of efforts. Their specific contributions are detailed below.
5.1. Tariff Expansion to Other Eligible Facilities
Throughout the proceeding, Sustainable Conservation argued that the tariff developed to implement AB 1969 should be expanded beyond water and wastewater treatment agencies to other eligible facilities without further deliberation.11 Sustainable Conservation explained the value to the State of having dairy farmers enter into power purchase agreements with utilities on a larger scale, and reminded the Commission of its previous findings on the benefits of biogas generation. We agreed, directing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company (SCE) to expand their offerings to other eligible generators using the same basic terms used for the water/wastewater program.12 We find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.2. Excess Sales Option
Sustainable Conservation argued that the tariff should allow generators to be sized for the available fuel source, allowing the generator to use on-site generation facilities to meet on-site need, then selling any excess generation to the utility.13 Sustainable Conservation supported the proposal of PG&E in this regard, and provided information to the Commission about the economics of biogas digesters for dairies. The Decision adopts the excess sales option.14
The Decision further acknowledges the contribution of Sustainable Conservation in stating:
We are also persuaded by Sustainable Conservation and RCM International (RCM) that the seller's decision on how small or large to make the generation facility may be influenced, if not driven, by the choice of full buy/sell or excess sales. We must establish the right framework and incentives for the proper sizing of facilities, while at the same time providing equitable treatment to customers, ratepayers, and stakeholders.15
We find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.3. No Program Termination Date
Sustainable Conservation urged the Commission to deny a PG&E proposal to terminate the program after five years. Sustainable Conservation suggested the Commission monitor the program at predetermined points in times to determine whether steady progress is being made.16 The Decision declined to adopt an automatic sunset for the program, stating that the tariff will be closed to new customers when the allocation is met. The Decision also stated that the Commission's expectation is that the utilities will keep the Commission informed about program progress.17 We find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.4. Full Market Price
Sustainable Conservation argued that payments for the electricity under this tariff should be at the full market rate, and there should not be a 10% reduction to cover administrative costs, as PG&E proposed.18 The Decision agreed, noting that the legislation is clear that the rate is to be set at the market price as determined by the Commission.19 We find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.5. Importance of Interconnection
Sustainable Conservation urged that the Commission ensure timely responses by utilities to requests from customer generators for interconnection.20 The Decision agreed with Sustainable Conservation "... that the timely response to an interconnection request is important to prevent interconnection from becoming a barrier to project completion."21 While we did not adopt specific tariff language recommended by Sustainable Conservation, we stated our intent to "enforce the requirement of timely review and disposition of an interconnection request ..."22
Although we did not adopt Sustainable Conservation's specific tariff-related recommendations, we acknowledge that they helped to build the record and contributed to a more thorough analysis. We find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.6. Frequency of Payments
Sustainable Conservation pointed out an inconsistency between the payment policies of the utilities, where some will pay a generator quarterly if the amount owed by the utility to the generator is less than $50, and others will not pay the generator until the amount owed is greater than $1,000, with an annual true-up at the end of the calendar year.23 The Proposed Decision emphasizes the importance of all sellers being paid on a timely, reasonable basis, and states:
We encourage SCE and SDG&E to make payments when balances are as low as $50, especially in the context of a seller selecting the "excess sales" choice, but we do not require it here.24
We find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.7. Ownership of Renewable Energy Credits
Sustainable Conservation requested the Commission clarify that any renewable energy credits (RECs) associated with on-site renewable generation are to be allocated according to proportionate use. That is:
... a utility purchasing renewable energy under the tariff gets only those RECs associated with the amount of net energy purchased, and not any RECs associated with energy used on-site.25
In the discussion on the excess sales option, the Decision adopts a PG&E proposal wherein "PG&E will acquire only the RECs associated with the energy it [PG&E] purchases."26 In the next section, we extend that same approach to SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). The Decision affirms the position asserted by Sustainable Conservation, and we find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution on this matter.
5.8. Treatment of Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sustainable Conservation asked the Commission to clarify that the only environmental attributes that a utility would get through a purchase under this tariff are those associated with the actual amount of energy purchased by the utility and/or any emissions associated with underlying operations on a farm or other facility. More specifically, Sustainable Conservation and RCM asked that the Commission clarify a Commission finding regarding net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biomass, which they said was made in Attachment 7 to D.07-01-039. They asked that the Commission clarify that farmers do not need to buy additional offsets when selling biogas-derived renewable energy.27
In response, we decided that:
Sustainable Conservation and RCM's request that the Commission clarify a finding regarding GHG emission from biomass (made in Attachment 7 to D.07-01-039) is beyond the scope of this proceeding.28
We find that Sustainable Conservation did not make a significant contribution on this matter.
5.9. Summary
In summary, we find that Sustainable Conservation made a substantial contribution to D.07-07-027 in 7 out of 8 areas they supported and should be compensated subject to our reasonableness and productivity analysis below.
10 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
11 "Opening Comments of Sustainable Conservation and RCM International (RCM) on Assembly Bill 1969 Implementation Proposals," May 2, 2007 at 2-3; "Reply Comments of Sustainable Conservation and RCM on Assembly Bill 1969 Implementation Proposals," May 9, 2007 at 1-2; "Comments of Sustainable Conservation on Proposed Decision of ALJ Mattson on AB 1969 Implementation," July 16, 2007 at 1.
12 D.07-07-027 at 46-48, Findings of Fact 23-30 at 57, Conclusions of Law 24-25 at 61.
13 Sustainable Conservation Opening Comments at 3-5; Sustainable Conservation Comments on Proposed Decision at 1-2; Sustainable Conservation, et al. Reply Comments on Proposed Decision at 1-4.
14 D.07-07-027 at 36-38; Findings of Fact 18-20 at 56; Conclusions of Law 20-21.
15 Id. at 36.
16 Sustainable Conservation Opening Comments at 6.
17 D.07-07-027 at 47-48.
18 Sustainable Conservation Reply Comments at 3.
19 D.07-07-027 at 21-22; Finding of Fact 11; Conclusion of Law 14.
20 Sustainable Conservation Opening Comments at 6-7; Sustainable Conservation Comments on Proposed Decision at 2; Sustainable Conservation Reply Comments on Proposed Decision at 4-5.
21 D.07-07-027 at 40.
22 Id. at 42.
23 Sustainable Conservation Opening Comments at 6; Sustainable Conservation Comments on Proposed Decision at 2.
24 D.07-07-027 at 42.
25 Sustainable Conservation Reply Comments at 2-3.
26 D.07-07-027 at 35.
27 Id. at 57.
28 D.07-07-027, Finding of Fact 31, at 57.
