10. Notice of Intent of the Consumer Federation of California to Claim Intervenor Compensation and Assessment of its Substantial Contributions to the Decision
On November 30, 2009, CFC filed a Notice of Intent of the Consumer Federation of California to Claim Intervenor Compensation in A.09-09-019 (CFC NOI). The notice is timely because it was filed within the timeframe set by the Scoping Ruling issued on November 5, 2009 in this proceeding.
CFC states that it is a customer because it represents individual customers and groups or organizations that are composed of California consumers, all of whom are residential customers of California public utilities.51 Prior Commission decisions have determined that CFC is a customer under Pub. Util. Code
§ 1804(a)(1) and there is no reason to disturb that determination.52
CFC argues it is eligible for intervenor compensation because participation or intervention in this proceeding will cause it "significant financial hardship," as defined by Pub. Util. Code § 1802(g). CFC was determined to meet the requirements to show financial hardship in R.08-12-009 on May 13, 2009. However, this finding of significant financial hardship in no way ensures compensation. (§ 1804(b)(2).)
For the reasons cited above, CFC meets the statutory criteria for eligibility for intervenor compensation.
CFC opines that it has been prevented from fully participating in this proceeding because the Scoping Ruling found that all issues raised by CFC, in its Protest, PHC Statement and at the PHC were outside the limited scope of the proceeding.53 CFC states that it "plans to fully participate in this proceeding," if the Scoping Ruling is reversed. CFC avers that it "will avoid unnecessary duplication of the presentation of any other party." CFC includes an estimated budget for its compensation request of $100,120.54
With respect to CFC's participation in this proceeding, we note that CFC was not prevented in any way from commenting on any issue determined to be within the scope of the proceeding. CFC did not file comments in this proceeding or respond to the comments filed by DRA or PG&E.
Generally, a NOI is filed prior to or at the beginning of evidentiary proceedings making the evaluation of whether or not a party had made a substantial contribution to the proceeding premature. There were no evidentiary hearings in this proceeding, however, and the NOI was filed on the same date that discovery closed. As a result, the participation of all parties to the proceeding was essentially complete when CFC filed its NOI. In order to facilitate the review of a potential claim for compensation following the issuance of this decision, we review CFC's substantial contributions to the proceeding as it stands.
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.55
As discussed above this proceeding was categorized as ratesetting with a need for evidentiary hearings anticipated. PG&E, DRA, TURN, and IEP all stated that evidentiary hearings would not be required because there were no issues of material fact in dispute and that questions regarding the Application could be answered through discovery. Only CFC argued that evidentiary hearings were necessary but, as discussed above, failed to show there were material issues of fact in dispute.
As discussed above, the issues raised by CFC in its protest, PHC Statement, and at the PHC were determined to be outside the scope of the proceeding. Rather than utilize its resources to address issues determined to be within the scope of the proceeding, CFC continued to raise the same issues in its subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. CFC was not precluded from addressing the reasonableness of PG&E's application or any other issues within the scope of this proceeding. CFC did not file comments or participate in any discovery. CFC failed to make a substantial contribution to this proceeding.
51 CFC NOI at 1-2.
52 See A.06-09-016 and most recently, Rulemaking (R.) 08-12-009 on May 13, 2009.
53 CFC NOI at 5.
54 CFC NOI at 6.
55 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
