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, we look at if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, 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.2
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions TURN/UCAN made to the proceeding. Their specific contributions are explained below.
TURN/UCAN set forth with specificity the contributions they made to
D.04-06-011, D.05-06-062, D.06-02-031 and D.06-09-021. The request for compensation adequately chronicles the work and contributions they made to each decision, resulting in a final decision on the contract for the Otay Mesa facility that is far superior for SDG&E ratepayers than the contract approved in the earlier Commission decisions. TURN/UCAN made a commitment to ensuring that the SDG&E ratepayers received the best facility at the best price, resulting in the most advantageous ownership form, and made a broad variety of substantial contributions leading to these results. Parties are asked to refer to the TURN/UCAN request for compensation to review the entire litany of substantial contributions.
For purposes of granting compensation, TURN/UCAN have met their burden of showing the substantial contributions to each of the four decisions, complete with references to specific language in the decisions that reflect the TURN/UCAN input. D.04-06-011 was the first decision involving the Otay Mesa power plant and that proposed decision did not reflect the modifications urged by TURN/UCAN. However, the final decisions approved by the Commission did include some of the modifications urged by TURN/UCAN. The final decision included the following provisions proffered by TURN/UCAN:
1. SDG&E's request to have certain conditions precedent tied into the Otay Mesa contract was rejected;
2. Stranded cost protection for bundled service customers;
3. The Converge contract was modified to include a residential customer Segment;
4. SDG&E's request for increased return on equity for new utility-owned generation projects was rejected for consideration in this proceeding;
5. SDG&E's request for a heat rate incentive mechanism for Palomar was modified to reflect the TURN/UCAN proposal to adjust the benchmarks over time based on capital additions or betterment;
6. SEMPRA utilities (Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company) were urged to engage in a voluntary renegotiation of Department of Water Resources contracts, in exchange for approval of Palomar;
8. Discussion on whether Otay Mesa was "needed" prior to 2010 was reflected in the final decision; and
9. A 53 Megawatt Celerity Energy, Inc. demand response proposal was approved as part of the final decision.
2 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
