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.6
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions Reid made to the proceeding.
Reid requests compensation for his participation in the PG&E's PRGs and CAMG. Details of these groups' activities are protected by confidentiality rules. D.07-11-024 requires that intervenors participating in these groups include in their requests enough non-confidential information for the Commission's findings under §§ 1801-1812. These intervenors must indicate the types of programs, policies, practices or documents reviewed in connection with the PRG work and how that work contributed to an outcome that benefited ratepayers. They must explain how their work added value to the PRG process because of the intervenor's unique analysis, perspective or work product or because of specific expertise or skills of the intervenor. These intervenors must also demonstrate reasonable collaboration with other group members to minimize duplication of effort.7 Reid's request meets these requirements.
Reid asserts that his participation in PG&E's PRG allowed him to identify issues in advance of an application and to focus on disputed cases that he believed were the highest priority for ratepayers. Many issues raised by Reid were resolved in the PRG process, thereby reducing the litigation efforts. As a result of Reid's participation, PG&E has withdrawn or modified its numerous proposals. Reid's unique analysis and work product added value to the PRG process. In PRG meetings covered by this request, Reid was the only group member to perform independent modeling of the cost effectiveness of electric utility contracts. Reid evaluated gas options, non-renewable capacity contracts, Renewables Portfolio Standard contracts, bilateral contracts, and bids received in request for offer solicitations, using his Black Model. In the past, we recognized similar contributions, for example, in D.06-11-048, where we approved proposed contracts and noted that Reid demonstrated using his Black model, that all of them were cost-effective.8 Here, we find that Reid's participation substantially contributed to PG&E's PRG and CAMG.
Reid indicates what information he analyzed and commented on in the course of his participations. We reviewed the volume of his work and weighed it against the hours he claims. Reid's work appears to be efficient.
6 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC 2d 628 at 653.
7 D.07-11-024 at 5-6.
8 D.06-11-048 at 12.
