5. Contributions of Other Parties
Section 1801.3(f) requires an intervenor to avoid participation that duplicates that of similar interests otherwise adequately represented by another party, or participation unnecessary for a fair determination of the proceeding. Section 1802.5, however, allows an intervenor to be eligible for full compensation 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.
In ALJ Long's March 13, 2007, ruling, he directed that eligible intervenors "must avoid duplication of efforts between themselves and other parties" and "must include in their requests for intervenor compensation a showing and accounting reflecting that the participation was efficiently coordinated with the participation of any other party with similar interests."
Greenlining provided in its NOI only very general statements regarding its intended participation. Greenlining stated that it anticipated significant costs ($218,625) to participate in this proceeding, because of its expectation that it would be fully litigated. When contrasting Greenlining's expenses with other intervenors, it was noted that it expected to incur only modest expenses for hours for consultants (25 hours), compared to its forecast of hours for counsel (700 hours). In ALJ Long's ruling of March 13, 2007, Greenlining (like all other intervenors) was advised to "rigorously control its costs because the consumers the intervenors purport to represent ultimately pay intervenor compensation."13
Greenlining submits that it was the only group to intervene on behalf of low-income and minority ratepayers in Sempra's service territory and was the only intervenor to raise issues regarding management, workforce diversity, and corporate philanthropy.
Regarding contributions by other parties, we agree with Greenlining that in a proceeding involving multiple participants, it is virtually impossible to completely avoid some duplication of the work of other parties. Greenlining states that it took all reasonable steps to keep duplication to a minimum and to ensure that its work served to supplement, complement, or contribute to the showing of other parties. We affirm Greenlining's assessment that it made concerted efforts to avoid duplication.
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.
13 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Finding Utility Consumers' Action Network and The Greenlining Institute Eligible to Claim Compensation of March 13, 2007 in A.06-12-009 at 6.
