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).) Secondly, 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.3
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions CARE made to the proceeding.
CARE participated in all phases of the proceeding actively representing the interest of its low-income and people of color members. In particular, CARE challenged the cost of the PPA to ratepayers, as well as the environmental and socioeconomic impacts the plant would have on its members and the public based on: (1) its costs to SCE ratepayers; and (2) CARE's concern about the potential environmental and socioeconomic impact. To address the environmental concerns, CARE requested a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Long Beach project before the Commission, before the Port of Long Beach, and the city of Long Beach.
CARE cites in support of its claim that it made a substantial contribution.
(D.07-01-041 at pp. 17 and 18.) The decision describes CARE's efforts as follows:
As CARE succinctly states "SCE may be paying way to[o] much to get some old and inefficient peaker turbines back in operation. According to CARE, it may be significantly cheaper to bring new efficient simple-cycle turbines online instead."4 In addition to the cost of the LBG project, CARE's other concern is the environmental consequences of repowering the Long Beach facility since the area where the units are located is contaminated with asbestos. CARE is understandably skeptical that LBG can meet all the environmental application and permitting milestones in time to have the units repowered and on-line by August 1, 2007. CARE even opines that the repowering may trigger review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that process can take as long as two to three years. CARE is also interested in LBG's credit worthiness and whether that poses a risk to ratepayers. In summary, CARE asks that the application be denied since the units are expensive and dirty.
....
....
LBG replied to CARE's arguments in its Reply Comments. In particular, LBG addresses the environmental challenges brought by CARE and states that LBG is pressing on with all applicable environmental permitting and review requirements in an expeditious manner, and if any permit or application is denied, then that lies with the other agency and not with this Commission. In addition, CARE makes numerous references to the Commission's deprivation of CARE's rights because the Commission is not undertaking a CEQA review. LBG asserts that the Port of
Long Beach has a CEQA process underway that is expected to be concluded well before the August 1, 2007 on-line date for the project. As part of its CEQA review, the Port of Long Beach will conduct a public review process and CARE and its members may comment on CEQA issues during the comment period.
The issues raised by CARE served to supplement the record with evidence and material allowing the Commission to render its decision. CARE's perspective is unique from other intervenors because it represents the interests of low income residential customers of color who actually reside within, and who constitute the most directly and severely impacted communities in the Long Beach project area, as well as also representing the community interests of residential customers who live in Long Beach.
CARE filed an Application for Rehearing of D.07-01-041, but withdrew the request when it settled its outstanding issues with Southern California Edison and other parties outside of the proceeding.
CARE will not be allowed compensation for the Rehearing request because the filing repeated CARE's comments to the PD and because the settlement it entered into was not evaluated in this proceeding.
3 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
4 CARE's Testimony, Exhibit 13, p. 3.
