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.5
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions UCS made to the proceeding.
Analyzing UCS's participation in the proceeding, we overall agree with its showing of substantial contributions. In many important respects, UCS helped to shape the Commission's approach to the proceeding's critical issues.
UCS provided a valuable input to D.08-08-028 in the area of defining the emissions characteristics of the RECs eligible for compliance in the RPS program. UCS substantially developed the record through its comments and participation in the workshop on TRECs and RPS compliance held September 5-7, 2007. UCS contributed to D.08-10-026 by arguing in support of revising MPR gas forecast methodology to achieve more accurate predictions of natural gas costs. UCS also urged the Commission to adopt a permanent GHG compliance cost adder, the proposal that was thoroughly analyzed in D.08-10-026. UCS developed a GHG compliance cost model, too, which was included as one of the options for the Energy Division's consideration. UCS contributed to other important issues, including the transparency of the MPR methodology. UCS also worked on the REC issues considered in D.10-03-021. UCS contributed through comments and participation in the September 5-7, 2007 workshops, and D.10-03-021 approves or considers UCS's ideas and research and agrees with UCS's position on some of the issues.
UCS's participation in the petitions for modification phase of the proceeding consisted of opposing the petitions and justifying the TREC limits adopted in D.10-03-021. As indicated in Section 1 of this decision, D.11-01-025 made technical corrections to D.10-03-021 and otherwise denied the petitions. We observe that UCS mostly prevailed in its opposition to the IOUs' petition for modification. As to the IEPA's petition for modification, UCS provided a substantive analysis6 of the issues proposed by the IEPA; however, its analysis did not contribute to D.11-01-025. D.11-01-025 rejected the issues brought up by the IEPA's petition ("While these issues may be important and worthwhile, they are not appropriately addressed by modification of D.10-03-21."7) and denied the IEPA's petition "[b]ecause D.10-03-021 already has in place processes to address the two issues8 raised by IEP in its petition."9
UCS's participation was critical to the outcomes of the proceeding. Many of the UCS's arguments were either approved or adopted with modifications or considered in D.08-08-028, D.08-10-026, D.10-03-021, and D.11-01-025.
5 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
6 Response of UCS to the Petitions to Modify D.10-03-021, filed May 4, 2010, at 9-7, etc.
7 D.11-01-025 at 11.
8 IEPA's proposals to consider bundled certain firm transmission transactions and to expand the review of LCBF methodology for RPS procurement that is ordered in D.10-03-021.
9 D.11-01-025 at 11.
