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 UCS made to the proceeding.

UCS alleges that it made substantial contributions to D.06-02-032 through pre-workshop opening comments, participation in the workshop, post-workshop opening and reply comments, and joint opening and reply comments on the Commission's proposed decision.

It states that it contributed particulary to the proceeding record on the subjects of GHG capping, emission baselines, over-time adjustments to GHG reduction requirements, interagency coordination and policy integration, role of financial incentives and penalties, interaction of GHG and financial incentives, allocation of GHG allowances. We find that it made a substantial contribution on those subjects. In addition, UCS takes credit for responding to the Commission's questions and interest relative to several matters the Commission either decided not to pursue or to defer to subsequent phases.

UCS' comments on the primary issues of whether GHG caps ought to be established and be load-based in a procurement incentive framework were reflected in the Decision at 15, 18-19. On the subject of emission baselines, UCS argued in post-workshop comments against the Commission staff's proposal to use the IOU's current resource plan as the baseline. The Commission expressly cited, and agreed with, UCS' position that a past baseline ought to be used, providing for a lower emissions cap and avoiding reduction disincentives (Decision at 38).

The issue of adjusting GHG reduction requirements over time was addressed by UCS at the workshop and in comments. The Commission highlighted for future exploration during the implementation phase UCS' suggestion that a "supply curve" of GHG reduction measures be developed concerning each utility's resource portfolio (Decision at 39). On the issue of inter-agency coordination and policy integration, UCS' workshop and pre-and post-workshop comments urging such coordination and integration were in accord with the Commission's ultimate decision (Decision at 16).

The Commission stated that "UCS was the main party arguing that penalties are essential for program success." (Decision at 46.) The Commission stated its preference for structuring penalties as alternative compliance payments (ACPSs) pursuant to UCS' suggestion (Decision at 47). In pondering whether portfolio-wide incentives could be implemented in a timely manner, the Commission noted UCS' position urging category-specific incentives. (Decision at 27 and 31.) The Commission committed itself "to evaluate shareholder risk/reward incentive mechanisms in resource-specific proceedings." (Decision at 32.) As to the allocation of GHG allowances, the Commission sided with UCS' position by stating that its initial preference was for administrative allocation, rather than an auction system, but acknowledged that the topic needed more evaluation which could occur in the next phase of its investigation. (Decision at 43.)

We find that UCS made a substantial contribution to the proceeding record in each of the above subject areas.

We note that UCS filed opening and reply comments on the proposed decision jointly with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 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 instance the joint effort by UCS and NRDC, and the coordination underlying it, materially benefited the proceedings. None of the related time put in by UCS appears to have been duplicative and it meets the test of having materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party, NRDC. (§§ 1801.3(f) and 1802.5.) We find that UCS actively took steps to avoid duplication.

² D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.