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.3
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions Greenlining made to the proceeding. Greenlining claims that it participated in every phase of this proceeding, representing the majority of California ratepayers, in particular minority and low-income ratepayers. Specifically, Greenlining claims it made substantial contributions as follows:
a. Opposed SCE's proposed Executive Compensation packages;
b. Addressed the issues of philanthropy and corporate giving, supplier diversity, and workforce diversity4 stating that all were relevant issues in this proceeding; and
c. With regards to SCE's rate increase, Greenlining was the sole representative of low-income ratepayers in this proceeding.
In this proceeding, Greenlining submitted a PHC statement, filed motions regarding the scope of the proceeding and to compel a witness to appear, sponsored expert witnesses, cross-examined witnesses, served testimony, filed briefs, submitted opening and reply comments on the proposed and alternate decisions, and, on an ex parte basis, communicated on numerous occasions with Commissioners. While not all of Greenlining's positions were adopted by D.09-03-025, we find that Greenlining made a substantial contribution in four areas - Executive Compensation, Philanthropy, Supplier Diversity, and Workforce Diversity. It is also important to note that, in authorizing intervenor compensation for Greenlining, among others, in SCE's last GRC, the Commission stated "All four of the issues addressed by Greenlining have policy implications that we feel should be addressed on a periodic basis."5
First, Greenlining's contribution to the Commission's consideration of SCE's executive compensation was significant. The Commission stated that "Greenlining, TURN, and DRA recommend adjustments to SCE's requests." We have reviewed Greenlining's testimony and that of other parties, and find that the adjustments adopted by the Commission reflect that the record was developed by Greenlining and others. In particular, Greenlining submitted exhibits illustrating the "inflated compensation"6 received by SCE executives as well as extensive data on SCE employees earning $1 million or more.7
Second, Greenlining was an active proponent in addressing the issue of philanthropy and corporate giving. Even though the Commission concluded that there was no issue to decide with regard to this item,8 the Commission did encourage SCE to establish philanthropy goals and share funds with "underserved communities."9
Greenlining was also an active proponent of supplier diversity in this proceeding. Even though the Commission concluded that there was no issue to decide with regards to this item,10 and that SCE has "demonstrated a firm commitment to its supplier diversity program,"11 the Commission did encourage SCE to continue to meet its goals in this area.12
Greenlining was also an active proponent of workforce diversity in this proceeding. The Commission concluded that there was no issue to decide with regards to this item,13 and stated "We commend SCE for its achievements."14 Even so, the Commission went on to encourage SCE to "build upon its success with African Americans in upper management with similar successes for other diverse groups in a manner consistent with sound leadership development and equal opportunity principles."15
Greenlining stated that it represents the interests, in part, of underserved communities, minority ratepayers, and low-income ratepayers.16 With regards to the rate increase, Greenlining recommended that "the Commission require Southern California Edison to withdraw the current application for a rate increase, in its entirety, and reapply for a much more modest increase which has the least possible impact on ratepayers."17 Greenlining also recommended that SCE improve its California Alternatives Rates for Energy and Low-Income Energy Efficiency programs and state specific enrollment goals for programs.18 In its intervenor compensation request, Greenlining references Commissioner Grueneich's dissent, which discusses low-income customer issues in some detail. Commissioner Grueneich's dissent makes no mention of Greenlining influencing her position. As a result, no recognition exists in D.09-03-025 of any contribution by Greenlining in this area. Although Greenlining claims to have made a contribution in this area, it did not submit testimony or briefs that addressed the appropriate level of revenue requirement with any specifity.
Accordingly, we find that Greenlining made substantial contributions regarding executive compensation, but contributions in this area were also made by DRA and TURN. We also find that Greenlining made contributions regarding philanthropy, supplier diversity, and workforce diversity, but that Greenlining did not make substantial contribution with respect to the overall rate increase and its effect on low-income customers. The amount awarded to Greenlining will be adjusted accordingly.
3 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
4 The term Workforce Diversity includes Management Diversity.
5 D.06-10-018 at 37. The Commission went on to find that with regards to these four issues, including: Supplier Diversity, Workforce Diversity, Philanthropy, and Executive Compensation, Greenlining had made a substantial contribution and was productive.
6 Exhibit GLI-02 at 39.
7 Exhibits GLI-18 and GLI-19.
8 D.09-03-025 at 390, Conclusion of Law (COL) 215.
9 D.09-03-025 at 309.
10 D.09-03-025 at 390.
11 D.09-03-025 at 312.
12 D.09-03-025 at 312.
13 D.09-03-025 at 390.
14 D.09-03-025 at 313.
15 D.09-03-025 at 313.
16 Request of the Greenlining Institute for An Award of Compensation for Substantial Contribution to Decision 09-03-025 at 1-2.
17 Exhibit GLI-04 at 11.
18 Exhibit GLI-02 at 24.
