6. Contributions of Other Parties
An intervenor must avoid participation that duplicates similar interests otherwise adequately represented by another party, or is unnecessary for a fair determination of the proceeding. (§ 1801.3(f).) An intervenor may be eligible for full compensation, however, 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. (§ 1802.5.)
Sustainable Conservation asserts that it coordinated its efforts with other parties to avoid duplication of effort. In particular, Sustainable Conservation says it coordinated with other parties that worked on biogas issues, including the Inland Empire Utility Agency, RCM, Western United Dairymen, and the California Farm Bureau Federation. Additionally, Sustainable Conservation reports that it helped organize pleadings and participation in the workshops. Although some redundancy may be unavoidable (due to the similarity of parties' interests), Sustainable Conservation states that it sought to avoid such duplication to the extent possible, and to mitigate it when it was unavoidable. By coordinating efforts with the parties listed above, Sustainable Conservation concludes that it assisted in consolidating the participation of several parties to help reduce the number of filings.
Because Sustainable Conservation and RCM29 filed several pleadings jointly, and no explanation of their respective efforts on the pleadings was provided, it is difficult to confirm Sustainable Conservation's claim that there was no unnecessary duplication of effort on the issues between active parties. RCM has not sought compensation for its efforts and would likely not qualify for eligibility under the intervenor compensation statutes. RCM could have filed pleadings without Sustainable Conservation, made the same points, and won on the same issues, without ratepayers having to pay anything. Similarly, California Farm Bureau Federation filed a joint pleading with RCM and Sustainable Conservation.30 Sustainable Conservation's claim does not identify how much effort was contributed by each entity.
We may award full compensation to an intervenor even when some duplication occurs when the intervenor demonstrates that its participation materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of another party, and helped develop the record, thereby making a substantial contribution. We are satisfied that the participation of Sustainable Conservation materially supplemented and complemented the presentation of other active parties, such as Inland Empire Utility Agency. Sustainable Conservation fails, however, to adequately demonstrate the degree to which its work materially supplemented, complemented or contributed to the presentation of RCM.
Therefore, we reduce this intervenor compensation award to Sustainable Conservation by 20% to address this issue of duplication, primarily with RCM.31 Absent any explanations regarding participation responsibilities, this is a reasonable assumption.32 We reduce this amount again by 12.5% to reflect the percentage of issues (1 out of 8) where Sustainable Conservation failed to make a substantial contribution.33
After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the amount of the compensation request is reasonable.
29 RCM designs and builds biogas digesters.
30 Joint Reply Comments on the Proposed Decision. (See D.07-07-027 at 53.)
31 The majority of the pleadings were filed jointly with RCM. California Farm Bureau Federation filed jointly only in the reply comments on the Proposed Decision.
32 We have similarly reduced claims by other intervenors. For example, "[i]n the past, when the level of duplication was difficult to ascertain, we have applied a `duplication discount factor' of 10% to 26% to the hours claimed by intervenors." (D.96-06-029, cited in D.96-11-040, 69 CPUC2d 253, 258.) In June 1996, we reduced the compensation of The Utility Reform Network (TURN) by 10% not based on the certainty of duplication, but because "[o]ur concern with TURN's participation is that it may have duplicated to some extent the contributions of other parties." (Id.) We did so again in November 1996 on a subsequent claim for compensation based not on the actuality, but the potential, of duplication. We said: "[i]n view of this high potential for duplication, we think the 10% discount we are applying to TURN's compensation is eminently reasonable." (D.96-11-040, 69 CPUC2d 253, 259.) In this case, Sustainable Conservation collaborated with RCM. RCM had a financial interest in the outcome. To the extent Sustainable Conservation provided value to the showing of RCM, it is unclear why RCM should not have paid those costs (or pay them now) rather than asking for reimbursement from the ratepayers. Absent a showing by Sustainable Conservation of the amount of contribution made by those with whom it coordinated (e.g., RCM, Western United Dairymen, California Farm Bureau Federation), we are unable to decipher the amount of duplication, or the degree to which Sustainable Conservation materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of RCM and California Farm Bureau Federation. We, therefore, apply a "duplication discount factor" here of 20%.
33 Sustainable Conservation failed to identify its work by issue, as required by Commission rules. (Rule 17.4(b).) We excuse this failure given that this is Sustainable Conservation's first claim for intervenor compensation. We also do this to promote a speedier and inexpensive determination of the issues given the time Sustainable Conservation and the Commission have already spent on this claim. (Rule 1.2.)
