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.³

With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions CHCC made to the proceeding.

Outlined below are numerous contributions to D.11-05-019 claimed be CHCC. In addition, CHCC has attached Exhibit B to its claim for compensation which further delineates its assistance in developing the record, and informing the record:

Technical Assistance: In collaboration with the CAPCC, the CHCC brought to the forefront of this rulemaking, the need to provide WMDVBEs with technical assistance. CHCC states that its advocacy efforts for technical assistance (TA) culminated at the October 12, 2010, En Banc Hearing on Diversity, where the CAPCC and the CHCC introduced a joint plan to adopt a centralized, academy-based technical assistance program to be administered by the utilities in collaboration with the Commission. CHCC proffers that this proposal was significant and led directly to the introduction of a very similar academy-based technical assistance plan by the Joint Utilities^{.4 5 6} According to CHCC, along with the efforts of CAPCC, its efforts were the direct catalyst for the Joint Utilities' academy-based technical assistance plan, and under the meaning of §1802.5, their efforts "materially complemented or supplemented" that plan. We agree that CHCC's efforts in this area, although the plan was not adopted by the Commission, provided information and argument that allowed the Commission to consider the full range of positions, thereby assisting the Commission's informed judgment based on a more complete record.

Reporting Requirements: CHCC states that it was solely responsible for the new requirement that annual reports be electronically filed and posted on the Commission's website.^{7 8} CHCC made a substantial contribution on this issue.

Auditing and Accountability: CHCC's states that it advocacy efforts in the area of supplier diversity program auditing and increased accountability were a "centerpiece" for its participation in this rulemaking. According to CHCC, its efforts on these issues led to the Commission's adoption of a new auditing procedure for utility supplier diversity programs, which the Decision exclusively contributes to CHCC's advocacy efforts.⁹ We agree that CHCC made a substantial contribution to the Decision as it has outlines here.¹⁰

Codification of En Banc Hearing: CHCC argues that it is directly responsible for the new requirement set forth in the Decision¹¹, for a new requirement that an annual en banc hearing on diversity be convened to discuss the GO 156 program.¹² We agree with CHCC's claim of substantial contribution as it has outlined here. The establishment of the en banc hearing as a permanent fixture of the GO 156 regulatory framework is significant, as it will increase the overall transparency of the program.

Bid Feedback: According to CHCC, it "fervently" advocated for the creation of a framework whereby WMDVBEs are provided notice of their rights to obtain feedback from the utilities regarding unsuccessful bids.¹³ The Decision acknowledged the importance of this issue in Finding of Fact 23 at 54-55 and 72. We agree that CHCC's efforts on this area made a substantial contribution to the Decision.

Bid Distribution: Voicing concerns from its Hispanic business members, the CHCC advocated for the utilities to make information regarding contracting opportunities more widely available, both through advertising, through the utilities own websites, and through the Supplier Clearinghouse.¹⁴ We agree with CHCC's contribution as outlined here.

Collaboration with CBOs: CHCC argued on behalf of the Hispanic community both in comments and testimony for increased, structured collaboration between the utilities and the community based organizations as means for achieving the General Order 156 procurement goals.¹⁵ As advocated by CHCC, collaboration with CBOs would increase the Utilities' ability to penetrate into the Hispanic community, whose businesses, according to CHCC, rely heavily on CBOs for business opportunities. CHCC made a contribution to this issue as acknowledged and supported by Finding of Fact 3 in the Decision at 27-30 and 69.

Capacity Building: The CHCC introduced and argued for an assortment of measures to build capacity amongst WMDVBEs which were ultimately adopted as Findings of Fact with the Decision, i.e., unbundling¹⁶ (adopted as Finding of Fact 17), mentorship programs (adopted as Finding of Fact 19), and the establishment of best practices workshops to identify successful supplier diversity (e.g., capacity-building) techniques,¹⁷ which were adopted within the Decision as Finding of Fact 13. We agree that CHCC made a substantial contribution to the Decision as outlined here.

³ D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.

⁴ The Joint Utilities referenced here are Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sempra Energy Utilities, AT&T, Verizon and California Water Association.

⁵ CHCC expended large amounts of time working with the Utilities to synthesize the joint technical assistance proposals following the En Banc Hearing.

⁶ See Decision, Finding of Fact 1-2 at 69.

⁷ See CHCC's May 5, 2010, Workshop on Underutilized Areas (Testimony of Julian Canete); June 7, 2010, Workshop on Barriers to Entry (testimony of Julian Canete).

⁸ See D.11-05-019, Finding of Fact 7, Conclusion of Law #1 at 70 and 74.

⁹ See Notice of Intent to Claim Compensation dated April 30, 2010 at 7 (describing the goal of improving accountability and auditing measures in GO 156); Comments on the Utilities' Aspirational Step Plans, June 9, 2010 at 3-4 (recommending supplier diversity program auditing; June 23, 2010, Oral Argument (Transcript at 81:20-83:20 (explaining the need for auditing measures); July 13, 2010, Comments on CPUC Barrier to Entry Workshop Staff Report at 4 (arguing for improved auditing measures); July 28, 2010, Reply Comments to Utility Rebuttal Remarks at 5-6; August 6, 2010, Reply Comments to CPUC Barriers to Competition Staff Report at 7-10; April 25, 2011, Comments on Proposed Decision at 4-6; and May 2, 2011, Reply Comments on Proposed Decision at 2-3.

¹⁰ See D.11-05-019, Finding of Fact 10, Conclusion of Law 6 at 70 and 74-75.

¹¹ August 6, 2010, Reply Comments to CPUC Barriers to Competition Staff Report at 10; October 12, 2010, En Banc Hearing on Diversity (transcript at 245:9 - 245:14) [addressing need to codify en banc hearing]; April 25, 2011, Joint Comments on Proposed Decision at 5-6 (arguing to make an en banc hearing mandatory).

¹² See D.11-05-019, Finding of Fact 35, Conclusion of Law 7 at 74 and 75.

¹³ See June 7, 2010 Workshop on Barrier to Entry, Testimony of Julian Canete; CPUC Staff Report, Workshop on Barriers to Entry, June 28, 2010 at 14 (acknowledging CHCC's concern regarding feedback rights); July 13, 2010 Comments on CPUC Barriers to Entry Workshop Report at 3-4 (arguing Utilities must provide notice to RFP participants of feedback rights).

¹⁴ See e.g., Opening Comments to May 5, 2010, Workshop on Underutilized Areas, April 28, 2010 at 3 (comments on incentivizing certification by notifying businesses of bid opportunities); June 7, 2010, Workshop on Barriers to Entry, Testimony of Julian Canete (explaining ease by which procurement opportunities can be electrically published); Comments on the Utilities' Aspirational Step Plans, June 9, 2010 at 1-2 (explaining need to advertise bid opportunities); July 28, 2010, Reply Comments to Utility Rebuttal Remarks at 4 (arguing for bid opportunities to be posted on Clearinghouse website); August 6, 2010, Reply Comments to CPUC Barriers to Competition Staff Report at 6 (explaining need to publicize bid information).

¹⁵ See e.g., Opening Comments on Scope of OIR, September 30, 2009 at 6-7 (addressing need for Utilities to use local community based organizations for outreach and to increase diversity); Opening Comments to May 5, 2010, Workshop on Underutilized Areas, April 28, 2010 at 3 (arguing for need for Utilities to increase networking with CBOs); June 7, 2010, Workshop on Barriers to Entry, Testimony of Julian Canete (Closing Remarks); Comments on the Utilities' Aspirational Step Plans, June 9, 2010 at 2-3 (arguing plans were deficient because they did not include any measures to collaborate with CBOs); June 23, 2010, Oral Argument (Transcript at 63:17-64:17); Comments on Staff Report to May 5, 2010, Workshop on Underutilized Areas, June 10, 2010 at 3 (arguing for need for Utilities to collaborate CBOs); July 13, 2010, Comments on CPUC Barriers to Entry Workshop Staff Report at 4 (arguing for collaborative best practices workshops); August 6, 2010, Reply Comments to CPUC Barriers to Competition Staff Report at 1-2 (arguing for Utilities to abandon their "go it alone" approach).

¹⁶ Opening Comments to May 5, 2010, Workshop on Underutilized Areas, April 28, 2010 at 2 and 3-4 (explaining need to unbundle contracts), Exhibit 2 (testimony of John Casas explaining the value of unbundling), Exhibit 4 at 2 (testimony of Ken Macias explaining the necessity for contract unbundling); October 12, 2010, En Banc Hearing on Diversity (Transcript at 243:23-244:16-testimony of Ken Macias addressing the need for contract unbundling).

17 Notice of Intent, April 30, 2010 at 6 (explaining the goal of creating a best practices symposium with the Utilities' Aspirational Step Plans, June 9, 2010 at 4 (recommending the creation of a best practices workshops), June 23, 2010, Oral Argument, Transcript at 81:20-83:20 (explaining needs for best practices workshops); July 13, 2010, Comments on CPUC Barriers to Entry Workshop Staff Report at 4 (explaining need to identify best practices of successful supplier diversity programs); July 28, 2010, Reply Comments to Utility Rebuttal Remarks at 6 (explaining need to identify best practices); August 6, 2010, Joint Reply Comments on CPUC Staff Report on Barriers to Competition Workshop at 9-10, explaining need to identify best practices).