4. 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.
Regarding contributions by other parties, we agree with CHCC that in a proceeding involving multiple participants, it is virtually impossible to completely avoid some duplication of the work of other parties. This was a wide-ranging rulemaking to review many aspects of GO 156 and the utility supplier diversity programs. The Commission reached out to many community organizations and asked for their input and assistance. CHCC submits that throughout the rulemaking, it coordinated its efforts with other parties to avoid duplication of effort and ensure efficiency. CHCC states in its July 5, 2011 request for an award of compensation that it worked diligently with other CBO's for a presentation at the June 23, 2010, Oral Argument which enabled each of the CBO's to present and "give their own voice to distinctive advocacy issues." In addition, CHCC states that it coordinated its efforts closely with the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce to jointly file comments on the CPUC Staff Report on the June 7, 2011, workshop to Barriers to Entry, the En Banc Hearing on Diversity and its comments of the proposed decision. According to CHCC, this collaboration marks the first time in a Commission proceeding where the CHCC and The California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce (CAPCC) interests were unified.
It is inescapable that other intervenors may well have made substantial contributions in the same subject areas, but CHCC states that it took all reasonable steps to keep duplication to a minimum and to ensure that its work served to supplement, complement, or contribute to the showing of another active party in the proceeding, CHCC jointly filed comments on the CPUC Staff Report on June 7, 2011, workshop on Barriers to Entry, the En Banc Hearing on Diversity and the Proposed Decision with CAPCC. At the request of the ALJ, legal counsel for CHCC and CAPCC also undertook coordination with other parties to improve presentation of views at the oral argument and to jump-start a consensus on technical assistance concepts.
CHCC states that while the issues addressed by CHCC and CAPCC were somewhat similar (e.g., increases/improvements to outreach and capacity building), the actual mechanisms themselves offered by the CHCC and CAPCC to accomplish their respective goals were clearly distinct and separate. CHCC states that the exception to this was the Chamber's joint technical assistance plan.
We agree based on a review of CHCC's timesheets and the fact that it filed joint comments on several occasions, that CHCC worked with other parties to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. We make no reductions to CHCC's claim in this area of our review.
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.
