4. Substantial Contribution
In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we consider whether the ALJ or Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (See § 1802(i).) If the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we consider whether the customer's participation materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party. (See §§ 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
GPI participated in Phase 2 of this proceeding by attending the Phase 2 PHC and workshops, and by filing several rounds of written pleadings on Phase 2 issues, including: PHC statements, post-workshop comments, opening and reply comments on several staff draft proposals and opening and reply comments on the proposed decision. As summarized in the Request, GPI's participation in Phase 2 made substantial contributions to D.07-09-017 and D.08-03-018 on several major areas, including reporting and tracking, determination of default emissions factors, statewide renewables penetration, cap-and-trade program design, allocation of emissions allowances, and point of regulation, among others. In the few instances where GPI did not specifically prevail on an issue, we benefited from GPI's analysis and discussion of all of the issues which it raised.
GPI made several substantial contributions to D.07-09-017. GPI argued that the role and need for regional GHG emissions reporting and verification systems should guide the development of reporting and verification protocols recommended to ARB. In particular, GPI urged the Public Utilities Commission and Energy Commission to design a protocol that could be adopted by other states, and to work with other states and neighboring provinces to design reporting and verification protocols that can and will be adopted by all. The Commission agreed with GPI on the need for a regional reporting and tracking system and directed Staff to support the California Environmental Protection Agency and ARB to lead a regional development effort through the Western Climate Initiative.
GPI's participation substantially contributed to the Commission's determination of the default emissions factors. Along with other parties, GPI argued against Staff's proposal to base emissions factors for unspecified power on a marginal-dispatch model because the model resulted in very low emissions factors for unspecified power from out-of-state sources. The Commission concluded in D.07-09-017 that using a higher default emission factor for unspecified sources would further the goal of accurate reporting by reducing the incentive of out-state suppliers to mask high emissions resources as unspecified resources.
GPI made several substantial contributions to D.08-03-018. In particular, GPI's comments contributed substantially to our understanding and expanded our consideration of allowance allocation methodologies, the use of revenues generated by allowance distributions and the role of programmatic mandates in a cap-and-trade system. As in its comments on D.07-09-017, GPI's strong advocacy of a regional approach to GHG regulation reminded us that our recommendations to ARB will have an impact on the regional approach being pursued by the Western Climate Initiative. Finally, GPI substantially contributed to the Commission's determination that the natural gas sector should not be included initially in a cap-and-trade system. GPI argued persuasively that possibilities available to achieve GHG reductions were fundamentally different, and that the principal source of near-term GHG emissions reductions in the natural gas sector would be increased energy efficiency.
In the one instance noted in the decision where GPI's position was not adopted, GPI's participation still served to enhance the Commission's decision making. In particular, GPI advocated for a 33% stretch goal for renewables on the basis that the Energy Action Plan's preferred resource loading order states a preference for future development of renewable resources above fossil-fuel resources. While GPI's position was not adopted in D.08-03-018, the Commission did conclude that in order to meet AB 32 goals, investor owned and POUs should be required to go beyond the current 20% renewables goals. The Commission also concluded that a 33% stretch goal would contribute significantly to attainment of the emissions reductions required by AB 32 and deferred, pending further analysis, the appropriate renewable resource goal. In sum, even though GPI did not prevail on this issue, its active participation convinced us that increasing renewables resource goals will be key to achieving the emission reductions required by AB 32.
The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope. (See D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC2d 570, 573-74.) As described above, GPI achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised during Phase 2. In the areas where we did not adopt GPI's position in whole or in part, we benefited from GPI's analysis and discussion of all of the issues that it raised.
6 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
