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.2
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions.
To achieve resolution of the Phase I issues, the Commission sought input from all stakeholders, including the IOUs and the IPPs, as well as all of the consumer and environmental groups, on whether the Commission should take action, or whether to take a stay-the-course attitude with all the programs and incentives that had already been established in other proceedings.
It was in this context that Aglet and WEM contributed to the proceeding. We solicited multiple rounds of comments, held workshops, and ultimately adopted a modified version of a proposal suggested by Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), NRG Energy, Inc., The Utility Reform Network, and AES Corporation (Joint Parties). While the final decision focused on the Joint Parties' proposal, the contributions of all stakeholders were a valuable part of the Commission's consideration of how to best ensure new generation for California.
3.1. Substantial Contribution Claimed by Aglet
Aglet participated on the issues of cost allocation, need determination, legal authority, requests for offer, and other critical issues. Although Aglet did not support the cost-allocation methodology ultimately adopted by the Commission, Aglet fully participated and made critical recommendations that helped the Commission reach its final decision. D.06-07-029 adopted several of Aglet's recommendations. We find that Aglet contributed substantially to the decision.
In its March 7, 2006 proposal, Aglet recommended not to adopt new policies without first determining how much new generation is needed. In response to that proposal, Finding of Fact 4 of D.06-07-029 states: "PG&E has a need for 2,200 [megawatts] MW and SCE has a need for 1,500 MW."
Finding of Fact 6 in D.06-07-029 states that long-term contracts are necessary to solicit investment in new generation in California. Finding of
Fact 6 is consistent with Aglet's post post-workshop comments of April 7, 2006.
In its post-workshop comments of April 7, 2006, Aglet recommended that contracts should only be signed as a result of bids received in an all-source solicitation, and that plants without existing contracts should also be allowed to submit bids in all-source solicitations. The Commission's adopted proposal indicates that each IOU may fill its new generation need by way of a competitive request for offer, which is open to any fuel type or technology from both green sites and repowered brown sites. (D.06-07-029, p. 27.)
Aglet also points out that the Commission established a cost allocation system, in which the benefits and costs of new generation will be shared among all customers in an IOU's service territory. (See, D.06-07-029, Finding of Fact 19, at p. 54.) Although the Commission did not adopt Aglet's recommendation against the cost allocation,3 Aglet's input in the discussion on this issue was an important part of the Commission's review of the JP's proposal and significantly contributed to the Commission's deliberations.
3.2. Substantial Contributions Claimed by WEM
WEM's contribution to the final decision was in suggesting that the Commission prioritize new energy efficiency programs before adopting policies that support fossil resources.4 WEM recommended that the Commission follow the Energy Action Plan priorities, which emphasized demand-side management and renewables, rather than fossil-fueled generation.5 The Commission noted WEM's position among key issues raised in pre-workshop proposals
(D.06-70-029, pp. 18 and 20). D.06-07-029 addressed WEM's concerns by emphasizing that "[t]he required new resources are in addition to the investments the IOU's are expected to make in energy efficiency and renewable generation and are consistent with the State's Loading Order policy, the goals established in Energy Action Plans I and II, the Commission's greenhouse gas policy, and Commission decisions implementing these policies." (D.06-07-029, p. 3.) The Commission finds that by its advocacy targeted at energy efficiency, WEM provided a valuable contribution to Phase I issues.
2 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
3 See Aglet's key proposals in its post-workshop comments of April 7, 2006.
4 D.06-07-029, p. 20.
5 See D.06-07-029, p. 20 and Appendix C, p. 22.
