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. (§§ 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 NRDC made to the proceeding.
NRDC contends that it substantially contributed to D.07-12-052 and to the CEC's 2005 IEPR process. In support of its contention,
NRDC cites a letter to President Peevey in which the CEC found that NRDC's contribution to the 2005 IEPR process was substantial. In deference to the CEC's findings that NRDC substantially contributed to its 2005 IEPR process, we restrict our inquiry primarily to NRDC's contributions to D.07-12-052. However, we note that NRDC, inter alia, argued various issues associated with load forecasting, resource assessment, and scenario analysis. These issues were found to qualify for intervenor compensation in the March 14, 2005 ACR in R.04-04-003. NRDC also stressed the need for portfolio analysis of resource fuel and technology types to help IOUs adequately analyze the associated costs, risks, and environmental impacts of their future portfolio of expected fuel types.
In terms of D.07-12-052, NRDC contends that its contributions were a substantial factor in the Commission's final determinations. In support of this claim, NRDC cites its participation in all aspects of the proceeding, including formal proceedings and related workshops. NRDC also filed testimony and briefs, and commented on the Proposed Decision related to the utilities LTPPs. Throughout the proceedings, NRDC argues that it focused on ensuring that the utilities' LTPPs were compliant with Commission and state policy, including the Energy Action Plan (EAP) loading order and planning for the statewide cap on GHG emissions required by AB 32, of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
Several of NRDC's positions and recommendations were specifically incorporated into D.07-12-052. NRDC emphasized the need to clarify and quantify the amount of EE embedded into the CEC's load forecast for each utility in order to properly understand the resource need for each utility. The Decision explicitly cited NRDC's testimony and opening brief against SCE in concluding "that SCE has not provided sufficient justification for not planning to achieve its EE goals."7 The Decision, furthermore, adopted NRDC's position with regards to an 80% overlap factor until a more accurate method could be developed for estimating future EE savings in the CEC forecast.
With respect to renewable energy, the Decision acknowledged NRDC's argument that the utilities did not provide sufficient evidence that their plans would put them on track for achieving 33% renewables by 2020, as required by the Scoping Memo. The Commission's finding that "all three LTPPs could have provided more detailed information such that the Commission could more accurately assess how or if the IOUs could achieve a 33% renewables target by 2020"8 is part of NRDC's contribution to D.07-12-052.
The Commission explicitly acknowledged NRDC in its finding "that the analyses presented by the IOUs should be detailed enough to enable adequate analysis of fuel mix under various scenarios, overall cost to customers, risks faced by customers and environmental impact."9 NRDC's argument that analysis of specific resource types is necessary to develop accurate GHG emissions was also favorably received by the Commission. The Commission also adopted NRDC's position in requiring IOUs to forecast the absolute GHG emissions of their plants, rather than emission rates, in their LTPPs. NRDC contends that providing this guidance to the utilities going forward was part of its contribution to the Decision. The Decision also cited "NRDC's suggestion that all three IOUs be required to provide absolute GHG emissions, with cost implications of those emission levels at various price points for CO2 allowances, under various scenarios in their future LTPP filings."10
We find that the above contributions were substantial, and that NRDC is entitled to full compensation for the work it performed during the proceedings.
With regards to contributions made by other parties, Section 1801.3(f) requires an intervenor to avoid participation that unnecessarily 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 if its participation materially supplements, complements, or contributes to that of another party if that participation makes a substantial contribution to the Commission order.
While NRDC's contributions were not completely unique during the proceedings, NRDC also contends that it "made a concerted effort to avoid duplication with other parties with similar interests ... by focusing on issues unique to NRDC among environmental groups."11 We agree that NRDC's participation was productive and not unreasonably duplicative of the efforts of other parties. NRDC assisted the Commission in enforcing GHG legislation under AB 32 and in working with the IOUs to better evaluate the utilities' EE portfolios. We deem NRDC's participation and assistance in these proceedings to have constituted a substantial contribution that is sufficient to qualify it for intervenor compensation under Chapter 9 Article 5 of the Public Utilities Code.
6 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
7 D.07-12-052 at 51.
8 Id., Finding of Fact 107.
9 Id., at 245.
10 Id., Finding of Fact 106.
11 Request for Award of Intervenor Compensation by the NRDC for Substantial Contributions to D.07-12-052, p. 7.
