3. Contributions to Resolution of Issues

A party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in various ways. It may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision. It may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the 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.

As noted in D.01-07-030, the Legislature enacted Sections 2889.9 and 2890 of the Public Utilities Code to deter unauthorized charges on telephone bills, or "cramming." The legislation authorized the Commission to adopt rules to deal with the practice. On January 3, 2001, Commissioner Wood issued a first draft of proposed rules governing non-communications charges on telephone bills and asked for comments. Revised rules were mailed out for comment on June 1, 2001. The rules ultimately adopted in D.01-07-030 reflect further revisions based on parties' comments and the Commission's own further study.

TURN participated throughout the process that led from the January 2001 draft rules to the final interim rules. Working in conjunction with Consumers Union, TURN submitted comments on the initial draft rules, the revised draft, and the draft decision adopting the final interim rules. The final rules adopt several of TURN's positions on issues, including the issues of revocation, billing errors, telephone company responsibilities to consumers, blocking option language, and the use of credit card regulations as a model.

3.1 Immediate Revocation

TURN argued that consumers must be able to revoke their general authorization for non-communications charges effective immediately. The draft rules made revocation effective within 24 hours. The final decision omitted the 24-hour standard and made it clear that consumers must be able to revoke "at any time." TURN also proposed, and the Commission agreed, that revocation should be made without charge.

3.2 Defining Billing Errors

The draft rules did not contain a definition section and made no reference to billing errors. TURN suggested using the definition for billing error found in the federal Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666. The final decision includes TURN's suggestion in its definition of "billing error." The final decision also changed the complaint procedure section to refer to billing errors, in addition to unauthorized charges, as TURN had suggested.

3.3 Utility Responsibility

TURN urged that billing telephone companies should be the single point of contact for customer complaints, just as credit card companies are required to be such a contact for their customers. The final decision permits telephone companies to make an initial referral of some complaints to vendors, but requires that the telephone companies "retain ultimate responsibility for handling customer complaints of billing errors."

3.4 Truth in Lending Act

The final decision relies on provisions of the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. and acknowledges that TURN contributed "good reasons to pattern these rules after the Truth in Lending Act." (D.01-07-030, at 10.)

3.5 Verizon Rebuttal

TURN in its reply comments sought to rebut proposals by Verizon regarding cost recovery and a requirement that revocation be made in writing, rather than by telephone. Neither of these Verizon proposals was adopted in the final decision.

In sum, the Commission adopted TURN's recommendations on several major issues. TURN states that its contributions did not duplicate the showings of other parties, and it notes the differences in its recommendations from those of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the Attorney General, and Greenlining Institute/Latino Issues Forum. While acknowledging some overlap (the Attorney General also proposed reliance on the Truth in Lending Act; ORA proposed that revocation be without charge), TURN states that the parties for the most part focused on different issues. TURN notes that Pub. Util. Code § 1802.5 allow full compensation even in the event of some overlap. We conclude that TURN has shown that it avoided unnecessary duplication, and that it is not necessary to reduce the compensation award for duplication of the showings of other parties. We also find that TURN has demonstrated that it made a substantial contribution to D.01-07-030.