3. Substantial Contribution
In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. 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.4
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions CFC made to the proceeding.
3.1. Categorization of the application and the need for hearings
CFC argued the application should be categorized as "quasi-legislative" because the application sought to establish policy "affecting an entire industry." CFC further contended that evidentiary hearings were necessary to resolve factual disputes. Although the proceeding was categorized as ratesetting, D.09-03-024 determined that evidentiary hearings were necessary. Information and evidence obtained during the hearings materially aided the Commission in its decision. Thus, CFC's efforts advocating for hearings qualify as a substantial contribution.
3.2. Allocation Method
CFC opposed replacing the current allocation method used, Equal Cents Per Therm with unified Equal Percent of Base Revenue cost allocation. CFC argued that the current allocation method fairly spreads the cost of PPPs to customers in proportion to the amount of gas they use. D.09-03-024 concluded that cost allocations of PPPs should be fair and equitable. D.09-03-024 concluded that cost should be "allocated to customer classes in a manner that appropriately assigns costs relative to the expected share of program benefits."5 The Equal Percent of Base Revenue cost allocation method precludes consideration of an individual program's purpose and intended benefit. Although the D.09-03-024 denied Applicants' request to change from Equal Cents Per Therm method to Equal Percent of Base Revenue allocation method consistent with CFC's position, the decision relied on the more detailed and extensive contributions of other intervenors to make its decision.6 Therefore, we find that while D.09-03-024 affirmed CFC's position, CFC failed to make a substantial contribution to this issue.
3.3. Impact of Allocation Method on California Business Climate
CFC argued there was no evidence showing that commercial and industrial customers were adversely affected by the growing charges for PPPs. CFC maintained Applicants failed to show businesses had shut down, reduced operations or were considering leaving the state because of the cost of PPPs.7 CFC unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the names of these customers through data requests, three motions to compel, and during cross-examination.8 The time expended by CFC's on these motions was not a substantial contribution.
However, CFC strongly advocated that public participation hearings were necessary to obtain additional information and evidence about the business climate in California. CFC contended that, contrary to Applicants' assertion, energy costs were merely one component of business costs and that the costs of PPPs were not making it more likely that business would leave California.9 Public participation hearings were held in Compton, San Diego, Oakland, and Bakersfield.10 Business customers' feedback, obtained during the public participation hearings and from evidentiary hearings, showed natural gas costs have a direct impact on the economic viability of food processors,11 but Applicants failed to show that reallocation of the costs of public participation programs would improve the business climate in California.12 The Commission concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that the costs of PPPs adversely impacted the California economy or competitiveness of California businesses.13 Therefore, we find that CFC made a substantial contribution to D.09-03-024 on this issue.
4 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
5 D.09-03-024 at 18.
6 D.09-03-024 specifically cited the contributions of The Utility Reform Network and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates in identifying the flaws in Applicants' contentions. See D.09-03-024 at 16-17.
7 CFC filed motions to compel the Applicants, Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, and California Manufacturers and Technology Association to provide specific customer information. ALJ Galvin ruled against CFC in all instances.
8 CFC billed over 25 hours to its work on the three Motions to Compel.
9 D.09-03-024 at 12 and 20.
10 CFC and PG&E were directed by the ALJ to help coordinate the public participation hearings by coordinating proposed dates and locations for the hearings.
11 D.09-03-024 at 11.
12 D.09-03-024 at 21.
13 Id.
