5. Substantial Contribution to Resolution of Issues

A party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in one of several ways. It may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision, or it may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the ALJ or Commission adopted. A substantial contribution includes evidence or argument that supports part of the decision even if the Commission does not adopt a party's position in total. Where a party has participated in settlement negotiations and endorses a settlement of some or all issues, the Commission uses its judgment and the discretion conferred by the Legislature to assess requests for intervenor compensation. We address each intervenor's efforts in turn.

A. TURN

TURN is entitled to intervenor compensation because it made substantial contributions to D.01-12-009 in a number of areas. In particular, TURN

· Opposed additional funding for the undergrounding program due to adverse rate impacts, absent further action by the Legislature;

· Opposed unfettered local control of Rule 20A projects;

· Supported maintaining the requirement that projects prove a General Public Benefit under Commission control;

· Opposed proposals that would dilute the criterion of General Public Benefit; and

· Made additional proposals for improving the undergrounding rules and policies.

D.01-12-009 incorporated many of TURN's substantive positions and recommendations. Specifically, our decision

· Did not expand the Rule 20A program to require additional ratepayer contributions;

· Did not grant cities unfettered local control;

· Retained a focus on the public interest;

· Did not include fires and earthquakes as criteria for application of Rule 20A;

· Required that "arterial streets" and "major collectors" should be as defined in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines; and

· Required property owners to advance funds before Rule 20A funds could be used for Rule 20B engineering studies.

TURN's most valuable contribution was to focus attention on the economic and safety costs of undergrounding and the potential inequity involved in requiring utility customers to shoulder the entire financial burden of an expanded undergrounding program. TURN made a substantial contribution to D.01-12-009.

B. CAUSE

The request of CAUSE mirrors in many respects the request of CCAE, with whom it worked closely during the proceedings. Its major contribution, like that of CCAE, was in helping to create a standardized statewide database. By agreement among various interested parties, CAUSE's lead attorney acted as the draftsman of a Master Data Request regarding the cost, benefit, safety, and reliability of undergrounding. The responses to this data request will be used to create the standardized database.

SCE argues that CAUSE did not make a substantial contribution to D.01-12-009³ and asks us to deny intervenor compensation altogether or, in the alternative, to reduce it to an award of out-of-pocket costs incurred by the citizens who chose to participate. PG&E concedes that CAUSE's contribution was substantial but asks us to cap the award at $30,000.

C. CCAE

Although we did not accept most of its proposals for inclusion in the final decision, CCAE is entitled to intervenor compensation. CCAE advocated an important requirement that we ultimately adopted, namely, to require the utilities to establish a statewide uniform database to track the safety, cost, and reliability of overhead and underground lines. This database will enable us to make more informed decisions regarding replacement of overhead with underground lines. While CCAE was not alone in urging the creation of such a database, it took a leading role and we believe its contributions were substantial.

D. 19SN

The request of 19SN presents particular problems not present in any of the other requests. As noted above, 19SN was represented in the proceedings by UDI, an engineering firm with its own economic interests in the outcome of the proceedings. In her ruling authorizing 19SN to seek compensation, ALJ Brown directed that the request should separate work done by UDI in its representative capacity from work done on its own behalf. This portion of ALJ Brown's ruling has not been followed. 19SN and UDI argue that because of the considerable overlap between their positions, they are in fact unable to make the separation called for by ALJ Brown. Instead, they propose to allocate one-half of the total cost of their presentation to UDI and seek intervenor compensation only for the remaining half.

19SN's failure to separate work done on its behalf from work done on UDI's behalf has not been lost on those making objections to the request, but we believe their objections go too far. The fact that both UDI and 19SN may support a particular measure does not mean that 19SN has no independent basis for supporting that measure above and beyond the economic benefit its adoption might confer on UDI. Similarly, the fact that 19SN has a specific desire to have its residential area included in a nearby Section 20A project, does not render the equity concerns underlying that desire irrelevant to our consideration. In fact, we believe that the presentation of 19SN focused our attention on the patchwork nature of current Section 20A projects and underscored the need for an undergrounding planning process that would try to minimize such outcomes. It is not merely the lack of aesthetics that troubles 19SN but the perceived unfairness of paying for improvements that benefit everyone around them but not themselves. The issues of who should pay and how much and in what way are central to the entire undergrounding discussion, whether taking place in Commission-sponsored venues or in the Legislature. 19SN is typical of neighborhood groups around the state who find themselves in similar positions and typically feel powerless to change them. Their presence in the proceedings served to remind us of the need to find procedures for allocating scarce Section 20A resources that are more equitable than the current procedures, a matter that we plan to take up at a later date. We find that 19SN made a substantial contribution, distinct from UDI; we will resolve the question of expense allocation between UDI and 19SN in Section 8D below.