4 Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, did the ALJ or Commission adopt one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer? (See §1802(i).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, did the customer's participation materially supplement, complement, or contribute to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision? (See §§1802(i) 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.¹

Should the Commission not adopt any of the customer's recommendations, compensation may be awarded if, in the judgment of the Commission, the customer's participation substantially contributed to the decision or order. For example, if a customer provided a unique perspective that enriched the Commission's deliberations and the record, the Commission could find that the customer made a substantial contribution. With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions TURN made to the proceeding.

TURN explained that D.04-11-022 resulted from the Commission ruling on SBC's motion for summary judgment. The Commission agreed with SBC that the issues were appropriate for summary judgment, but determined that the application was contrary to the principles articulated in the IRD decision and denied the application. TURN stated that the Commission adopted TURN's position on several issues in denying SBC's application.

Specifically, TURN stated that its legal brief and accompanying declaration showed the failure of local exchange competition in California, and that the Commission adopted this proposition in conclusion of law 7 of D.04-11-022. TURN also pointed out that it presented an extensive showing that SBC's proposal would result in customer harm. Consistent with this showing, the Commission determined that SBC's proposal was contrary to the public interest at this time.

TURN made a substantial contribution as described above. Having determined the scope of TURN's substantial contribution, we next look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.