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).) 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.⁵

With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions Sarvey made to the proceeding. Sarvey asserts in his claim for compensation that the purpose of his intervention was to demonstrate that the proposed site had significant hazards which were not assessed in the waiver process. Additionally, he alleged that PG&E had not fulfilled its obligations under SU-58 and had violated the waiver. He argued that PG&E did not qualify for the waiver because the waiver which was granted (SU-58) failed to meet the requirements of DOT 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart O, Integrity Management Rules. Because other projects are planned at the site and adjacent to the site, the possibility that the pipeline needed to be replaced was a pending issue. Alvin Greenberg, Sarvey's risk management expert, uncovered data on five leaks on the Chevron crude oil pipeline, which lies in the same pipeline corridor as L 401. All five of the leaks occurred in Tracy between 2001 and 2005. This risk assessment information was critical in the adoption of the Settlement Agreement with PG&E which, amongst other issues, resulted in PG&E agreeing to withdraw its waiver application and agreeing to replace the 36-inch pipeline under the sports park parcel after construction. Sarvey and his experts resolved a major dispute between the parties, which resolved safety concerns that were raised by local residents of the City, without interfering with PG&E's obligations to provide natural gas to its customers.

The parties met for two mediation sessions conducted by ALJ DeBerry, which led to the proposed settlement in this case. On August 31, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for adoption of the proposed settlement agreement.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, PG&E has agreed to replace the relevant portion of L 401 (between mileposts 325,44 and 326,35) in a manner that meets the requirements of GO 112-E and related federal regulations, in order to address the safety concerns raised in this proceeding.

Since PG&E has agreed to replace the relevant portions of L 401, the parties agree that Resolution SU-58, which granted PG&E's waiver request, is now moot. The parties therefore moved for rescission of Resolution SU-58. Complainant, Sarvey, and CARE agreed to request dismissal of the complaint and their motions to intervene, and consented to the terms of the proposed settlement agreement. Sarvey requests no personal compensation for his efforts and expenses other than those incurred in the hiring of his expert, Alvin Greenberg (Risk Science Associates). Sarvey's claim of substantial contribution is affirmed.

⁵ D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.