3. Greenlining's Assertion of a 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.5
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the contributions asserted by Greenlining.
Greenlining argues that it was the only intervenor to advocate on behalf of low-income and minority ratepayers in Sempra's service territory and was the only intervenor to raise issues regarding management diversity, workforce diversity, and corporate philanthropy. In support of this claim, it argues that Sempra ultimately accepted the vast majority of Greenlining's contentions in these areas and agreed to incorporate these contentions as the basis of the Six-Year Leadership Agreement.
Greenlining argues that D.08-07-046 adopted in whole or in part one or more of its factual contentions. For instance, Greenlining argued that closing branch offices could reduce access by low-income ratepayers to Sempra customer service representative and would negatively complicate the bill payment process. To avoid this potential situation, Greenlining advised against allowing any additional branch office closure and advocated for further study regarding additional non-utility payment locations. Greenlining argues that D.08-07-046 acknowledged its contribution. In support of this argument, Greenlining cites to "Finding of Fact 21, which stated "There are unresolved problems with non-utility payment locations. Some customers are likely to be precluded from access to utility service representatives and unable to pay the utility directly." And Finding of Fact 22, stated "A moratorium on closing branch offices and opening new non-utility payment locations at `payday lender' businesses will allow an opportunity to reexamine how to reasonably provide services to all customers." Further, D.08-07-046 suspended front-counter closures, stating "There is a moratorium imposed on SDG&E and SoCalGas precluding any further branch closures or new authorized payment locations within payday lenders."6
Greenlining also submits that D.08-07-046 adopted in whole or in part one or more of Greenlining specific policy or procedural recommendations.7 Throughout the proceeding, Greenlining focused its advocacy on increased management diversity and increased supplier diversity at Sempra. Greenlining argues that Finding of Fact 42 directly addresses this issue and states, "Diversity is good public policy, therefore SDG&E and SoCalGas should competently staff at all times the full forecast of positions for WMDVBE (Women, Minority, and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises) activities and diversity."8 Greenlining argues that D.08-07-046 stated, "SDG&E and SoCalGas shall fully fund all G.O. 156 and diversity-related activities as included in the revenue requirements of the adopted Test Year 2008 Settlement for each company. SDG&E and SoCalGas shall report on its compliance with G.O. 156 and the achieved levels of diversity in testimony and work papers in the next general rate cases."9 Thus Greenlining argues that the decision orders Sempra to fund all staff activities aimed at improving diversity.
Greenlining argues that although the decision does not adopt the Six-Year Leadership Agreement between Sempra and Greenling, Conclusion of Law 16 suggests that the settlement is valid as a policy recommendation, stating "SDG&E and SoCalGas may implement the settlement with Greenlining without an order of the Commission."10 Thus, Greenlining argues that D.08-07-046 adopts its contentions and recommendations in part, if not in full. Greenlining also points out that it believes § 1802(i) would allow the Commission to award the customer compensation for all Greenlining's reasonable fees and costs incurred even if it finds that the decision adopts Greenlining's contentions and recommendations only in part.
Finally, Greenlining argues that it convinced "Sempra to commit to improving workforce diversity and economic development in California." Within this context, Greenlining submits that it made substantial contributions to D.08-07-046.11
5 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
6 D.08-07-046 at 104.
7 The Greenlining Institute's Request For Award of Compensation of September 10, 2008 at 10-11.
8 Id. at 95.
9 Id. at 107, (No. 29).
10 Id. at 100.
11 The Greenlining Institute's Request For Award of Compensation of September 10, 2008 at 11.
