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.
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 agricultural biogas issues, including Western United Dairymen and the California Farm Bureau Federation. Additionally, Sustainable Conservation reports that it helped organize protests and comments. 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, Western United Dairymen, and the California Farm Bureau Federation filed protests and comments jointly, and no explanation of their respective efforts 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. Western United Dairymen and the California Farm Bureau Federation have not sought compensation for their efforts nor would they likely qualify for eligibility under intervenor compensation statutes. Western United Dairymen and the California Farm Bureau Federation could have filed the same protests and comments without Sustainable Conservation, made the same points, and won on the same issues, without ratepayers having to pay anything. 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. In this claim, however, Sustainable Conservation fails to adequately demonstrate the degree to which its work materially supplemented, complemented or contributed to the presentation of Western United Dairymen and the California Farm Bureau Farm Bureau.
Therefore, we reduce Sustainable Conservations claim for substantial contributions to Resolution E-4137 by 20% to address this issue of duplication with the other parties. Absent any explanations regarding responsibilities for preparation of joint documents, this is a reasonable assumption.15 We reduce the remaining time allocated to E-4137 by 40% to reflect the percentage of issues (2 out of 5 issues) where Sustainable Conservation failed to make a substantial contribution on E-4137.16
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.
15 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.) Absent a showing by Sustainable Conservation of the amount of contribution made by those with whom it coordinated (e.g., 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 these parties. We, therefore, apply a reduction here of 20%.
16 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 second 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.)
