4. Contributions of Other Parties
Due to the confidentiality provisions governing settlements, it is difficult to make clear determinations of credit for any specific outcome in the many settlement agreements adopted by the Commission. However, based on a careful of review of the application, testimony submitted by each intervenor and others, the various implicated settlements, submitted comments, and D.07-09-004, which adopted the settlements, the Commission is able to draw some conclusions about whether any reductions are warranted due to overlap and duplication. A 25% reduction to VSI's request is warranted.
Section 1801.3(f) requires an intervenor to avoid participation that 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 where its participation materially supplements, complements, or contributes to the presentation of another party if that participation makes a substantial contribution to the Commission order. In this proceeding, there were 22 parties that participated in some part of the prolonged negotiations that led to adoption of seven settlement agreements resolving a plethora of general rate case issues. The named intervenors each played an important role not only with advancing their positions but also in working with the other parties to achieve consensus on the substantive issues ultimately resolved.
We agree with TURN that in a proceeding involving multiple participants, it is virtually impossible to completely avoid some duplication of the work of other parties. However, we agree TURN took reasonable steps to keep duplication to a minimum and to ensure that its work served to supplement, complement, or contribute to the showing of the other very active party in this proceeding, DRA. (§ 1802.5.) TURN states it collaborated closely with DRA throughout this proceeding, selected its areas of emphasis carefully, and coordinated coverage of and participation in the numerous settlement negotiation meetings. This claim is supported by the testimony. For example, TURN addressed various issues in its testimony that DRA did not, including allocation of non-CARE public purpose program costs, CTC and Nuclear Decommissioning Costs, and Energy Efficiency Shareholder Incentives. TURN was also an active negotiator regarding both the residential master metering discount and BOMA's proposal for new commercial submetering, including filing comments on the latter, where DRA essentially abstained from these issues. Finally, TURN contends without protest that its settlement negotiations in conjunction with other parties led to reductions in PG&E's proposed revenue allocation to the residential class and other improvements in rate design to assure rate equity. The Commission agrees with TURN that its work was neither unnecessary nor duplicative of the work of any other party.
VSI raised the same issues as TURN and DRA regarding overall lower increases to residential rates and collection of CSI funds on an equal-cents/kWh basis. The California Farm Bureau (CFB), PV Now and CAL SEIA joined these parties on the CSI issue. VSI asserts its contribution did not duplicate the efforts of other parties on either issue. We disagree. VSI's testimony on these issues is slim compared to that of the other parties and did not supplement, complement, or uniquely contribute to the record. However, we recognize that the addition of another party echoing these concerns may well have had an impact during the settlement negotiations that resulted in accommodation of these concerns, including lower increases to residential rates.
In its testimony, VSI also explained the differences between E-7 and E-6 TOU tariffs and how PG&E's change from the E-7 to E-6 tariff diminished incentives to residential customers to install a solar PV system. This position is reflected in the re-opening of E-7 rate class and some tariff adjustments in the RRD Settlement. However, the same position was argued more thoroughly in the testimony submitted jointly by PV Now and CAL SEIA, particularly that of Daniel M. Pelligrini. VSI also nominally opposed PG&E's requested increases to fixed charges for small commercial customers in its testimony, a position significantly developed by DRA in its testimony. The Commission agrees that some portion of VSI's work, primarily in settlement negotiations, was not unnecessary or duplicative, but much of its written testimony was duplicative of or less developed than testimony by DRA and TURN.
AECA's contribution was not duplicative because most of the issues included in its written testimony were confined to the agricultural class and raised by AECA following its deep involvement in the agricultural definition settlement earlier in the proceeding.4 Although the CFB also sought lower increases for agricultural rates, including support for a 2% cap, most of CFB's testimony was focused on marginal costs and DRA's proposal to allocate CSI and other costs on equal cents per kWh. The Commission agrees with AECA that its work was neither unnecessary nor duplicative of the work of any other party.
4 D.06-11-030.
