4. 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, we look at whether the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, and whether the customer's participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision. (§§ 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.4
Should the Commission not adopt any of the customer's recommendations, compensation may be awarded if, in the judgment of the Commission, the customer's participation substantially contributed to the decision or order. For example, if a customer provided a unique perspective that enriched the Commission's deliberations and the record, the Commission could find that the customer made a substantial contribution. With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions the Mackintoshes made to the proceeding.
The Mackintoshes state that they made a substantial contribution to D.07-12-028 in the following manner:
· For over two years, the Mackintoshes argued that the best option from an environmental and electrical perspective was to complete the project within the existing right-of-way. The Commission agreed in D.07-12-018.
· The Mackintoshes argued that alternative routes, such as the one they proposed, deserved a closer look. The Commission therefore ordered preparation of an EIR, and certified the EIR in D.07-12-018.
· The EIR concluded, and the Commission agreed, that the preferable project was one substantially similar to the Mackintoshes' original proposal. The Commission chose the environmentally superior alternative, known as "Mackintosh/ALJ Variation A." That alternative is a variation on "Option 5" that the Mackintoshes proposed in December 2005.
· The Mackintoshes' "Option 5" proposal was to upgrade, using a pole-for-pole transfer if necessary, the existing line between Weed Substation and Weed Junction from 69 kV to 115 kV, within the existing right-of-way. The proposal required installation of a new 115/69 kV transformer at Weed Substation. The route the Commission adopted also involved certain pole for pole transfers and a 115/69 kV transformer at Weed Substation.
· The Final EIR contains certain revisions from the Draft EIR that the Mackintoshes suggested. See Final EIR at 2-70.
In its response, PacifiCorp does not dispute that the Mackintoshes made a substantial contribution, but instead objects to the reasonableness of the requested amounts. We agree with several of PacifiCorp's objections, as we discuss below.
We are satisfied that the Mackintoshes made a substantial contribution to this proceeding. D.07-12-018 completed our review of PacifiCorp's application, approved the route proposed by the Mackintoshes (albeit in a slightly different configuration) and certified the environmental document essential to an analysis of whether the project could proceed. Thus, we find that the Mackintoshes made a substantial contribution to the outcome of D.07-12-018.
4 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
