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.3
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions GPI made to the proceedings.
3.1. D.06-07-029
GPI states that its contributions to D.06-07-029 relate to the inclusion of renewables in the interim cost-recovery request for proposals (RFP). GPI was active in this party of the proceeding. In addition to attending workshops, GPI prepared comments, and reviewed the draft decision leading to D.06-07-029. GPI and other parties assisted in our development of new, temporary cost-allocation mechanisms that divided the management of the energy and capacity components of the newly acquired generation, so that the Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) are not responsible for the energy management of the new capacity by default. Instead, the energy component of new generation contracts will be managed by the entity that values the energy the most, as revealed through an auction or other bidding process. Specifically, GPI argued for the inclusion of renewables in any RFP that utilizes the interim cost-recovery mechanism approved in D.06-07-029. D.06-07-029 adopted GPI's recommendation and required that RFPs under the interim cost-recovery mechanisms must be all-source eligible consistent with the loading order.
3.2. D.07-12-052
GPI was active in this party of the proceeding. In addition to attending workshops, GPI submitted testimony, answered and issued data requests, filed opening and reply briefs, and reviewed the proposed decision leading to
D.07-12-013. The analysis by GPI and others showed that all three LTPPs were deficient and spotty when it comes to filling their net short position with preferred resources from the EAP loading order and particularly inadequate in accounting for GHG emission reductions. The LTPPs showed the utilities, for the most part, filling and planning to fill their projected net short positions with conventional resources without providing a highly developed analysis to support this strategy. Among other things, going forward we required the utilities to reflect in the design of their requests for offers (RFO) compliance with the preferred resource loading order and with GHG reductions goals and demonstrate how each application for fossil generation comports with these goals. GPI provided essential analysis related to renewable procurement activities of the IOUs, implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, and implementation of the EAP goal to achieve 33% statewide renewable penetration by the year 2020.
GPI's substantive contribution is obscured by its complete failure to identify a Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, or Order that reflects a position they advocated. Instead, GPI repeatedly claims to have advocated a position (without reference to where in their documents this advocacy can be found) and asserts that the decision agreed with its position. At no point does GPI actually reference a specific part of the decision they contributed to. For example, though GPI repeatedly claims to have contributed to D.07-12-052, in every instance where supporting language in the decision is cited, that language is inexplicably attributed to D.06-02-013.4 GPI's request compounds this error by citing to the wrong pages in D.07-12-052 that they are actually attempting to quote from.
Though poorly referenced in the compensation request, it is readily apparent that GPI made a substantial contribution to D.07-12-052. For example, GPI's claim that it made a substantial contribution in the area of planning for compliance with AB 32, California's GHG legislation, is acknowledged in
D.07-12-052 at page 241, and again at page 245 where, with regard to GHG's, "[w]e support GPI's assertion that the essential purpose of AB 32 is to change the state's electricity markets in fundamental ways." Our agreement with GPI's position is further reflected in Finding of Fact 9 wherein we state:
Going forward, the IOUs will be required to reflect in the design of their RFOs compliance with the preferred resource loading order and GHG reduction goals and to demonstrate how each application for fossil generation filed based on the procurement authority granted in this proceeding fits into each IOU's GHG reduction strategy.
Similarly, GPI's claim that it presented detailed analyses on the renewables procurement activities and prospects of the IOUs is confirmed in D.07-12-052 at pages 68 and 71. Specifically, GPI took issue with SCE's and PG&E's assumption of a 100% success rate for all renewables projects under development.5
D.07-12-052 acknowledges this concern in Finding of Fact 29 and states:
In addition, the plans could have been strengthened by fully providing the timing and parameters of the expected RFOs or other means to fill identified renewable needs; addressing the possibility of contract failure; providing for assessments that are informed by general and resource-specific uncertainties and risks; and making other resource need determinations based on "reasonable expectations" of renewable supply.
GPI also contributed to D.07-12-052 on issues related to attainment of the EAP's 2020 renewables goals (at 255), and long-term planning.6 Thus, on many issues in this proceeding, we find that GPI made substantial contributions to the decisions for which it seeks compensation.
3 See D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
4 D.06-02-013 was an unrelated decision issued in Rulemaking 93-10-002 that modified D.97-09-045 to conform it to Federal Court Decisions.
5 See D.07-12-013, p. 71.
6 See D.07-12-013, at 255 and 244, respectively.
