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.67
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions CFC made to the proceeding. The Commission analyzed CFC's position on each of the issues described in Section 1 of this decision.
It is difficult to evaluate CFC's contribution to D.10-06-047. CFC commented on many aspects of the proceeding, however, their comments were inconsistent, sometimes making an insightful comment, sometimes far off base and garbled. The instant request for compensation, as it relates to CFC's asserted contributions to the decision does not directly follow the format or frame the relevant issues, as set forth in the revised February 8, 2010 Scoping Ruling or as presented in the body of D.10-06-047. CFC has framed the issues in a manner meant to highlight its contribution to the proceeding8 and gloss over its omissions and/or failures. In addition CFC has requested compensation for "the remaining 90 percent of time not charged to D.09-12-046"9 without specific citations or references to how that work is applicable to the instant decision.
On the issue of how the Smart Grid Deployment plans should be used, the Commission found that CFC was the single commenter stating that a deployment plan can serve in lieu of a subsequent reasonableness review. CFC also argued for a detailed cost benefit analysis at the time of the filing of the deployment plan. This argument was found to be unpersuasive as information on Smart Grid technologies is developing rapidly and undertaking a detailed review of costs and benefits far in advance of an investment could not yield reliable results.10 We find that CFC did not contribute to this issue.
On the issue of what elements a Smart Grid Deployment Plan should have, CFC asserts that it contributed to this issue as "some" of the elements suggested by CFC were similar to those elements included in the list proposed by the utilities and adopted by the Commission. The most generous reading of this section finds that CFC's criteria are the same as less than half of the adopted criteria. CFC is not referenced in this portion of the decision. We find the CFC's contribution to this issue was limited.
CFC has claimed contribution on the issue of the Metrics the IOUs use to implement deployment of the Smart Grid. CFC noted that D.10-06-047 mentioned CFC's comments on the issue of metrics.11 The comment referenced by CFC does not indicate anything more than the Commission noted CFC's point of view, as was done for a number of intervenors. The Commission declined to adopt an initial set of metrics, instead it determined that a workshop was needed in order to create successful metrics that would allow the Commission and stakeholders to measure the state of the grid.12 We find that CFC's contribution on this issue was limited.
On the issue of how the Commission should consider and approve Smart Grid Deployment plans, including the issue of consumer requirements and education, CFC emphasized the importance of a targeted educational effort and that consumers need to understand the reasons for the Smart Grid Deployment and the advantages that the system could offer.13 CFC's recommendations for consumer education were important and adopted in the decision. We find that CFC contributed on this issue.
On the issues of Cyber-Security and access to information, CFC argued that there should be protections in place to guard against unauthorized access or disruption caused by disgruntled employees, industrial espionage and other factors.14 In addition CFC argued the authorized access to consumer information via the Smart Grid by third-parties must be controlled and made secure.15 CFC's comments and the importance of security, privacy and their review of the law were well done and on point. We find that CFC contributed on this issue.
6 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
7 Joint Ruling, R.08-12-009.
8 CFC Request for Award of Compensation (filed 8/23/10) at 2.
9 CFC Request for Award of Compensation at 12.
10 D.10-06-047 at 22.
11 CFC Request for Award of Compensation at 8.
12 D.10-06-047.
13 CFC Request for Award of Compensation at 9.
14 Id. at 10.
15 Id. at 11.
