Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, did the ALJ or Commissioner adopt one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the intervenor? (See § 1802(h).) 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(h), 1802.5.) As described in § 1802(h), 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 of fact (FOF), conclusions of law (COL), and ordering paragraphs 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.¹⁸

Should where 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.¹⁹ With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions UCS made to the proceeding.

Carbon Costs Must Be Included
in Resource Comparisons

UCS pointed out in testimony and briefs a growing momentum in the direction of establishing regulation that will compel the utilities to limit their carbon emissions, and its occurrence during the time-frame covered by the LTPPs.²⁰ In D.04-12-048 the Commission included a greenhouse gas (GHG) cost "adder" when evaluating fossil generation costs²¹ and directed the IOUs to use a "range of values to explicitly account for the financial risk associated with GHG emissions . . . of $8 to $25 per ton of CO2, to be used in the evaluation of generation bids." UCS recommended using a range of carbon values starting at no less than $8 per ton of CO2.²² This recommendation substantially contributed to the Commission's resolution of this issue.

Renewables Target is a Floor,
Not a Ceiling

UCS advocated that the renewables portfolio standard (RPS) establish a "floor" for the IOUs in their acquisition of renewables and the Commission used the same wording: "We find also that RPS targets are a floor - not a ceiling. EAP loading order places renewables above conventional generation."²³ In addition, UCS urged the Commission to require the IOUs to solicit renewables bids in all solicitations, not just RPS-specific solicitations.²⁴ The Commission adopted this approach.²⁵

RPS Program Should Remain the Primary
Vehicle for Renewables Procurement

UCS made the case for retaining RPS solicitations as the primary vehicle for renewables procurement, while opening all-source solicitations to renewables bids.²⁶ The Commission agreed with this position and adopted this approach.²⁷

Utilities Should File Supplements to their
LTPPS to Reflect Final Decision

UCS requested that the Commission order the IOUs to file supplements to their LTPPs in March 2005 to reflect any changes necessitated by the Commission's final decision.²⁸ The Commission was persuaded by this suggestion and required "a compliance filing updating [the long-term plans] to reflect the changes and modifications" adopted by the Commission. The due date set for this filing was March 25, 2005.²⁹

Debt Equivalency Advocated by
IOUs Was Too High

UCS argued that the debt equivalency (DE) factor advocated by the IOUs of 30% was too high because an IOU's credit rating is not diminished the same percentage, and the factor would have an adverse affect on the purchase of renewables relative to fossil fuel generation.³⁰ The Commission found UCS' arguments strong and reduced the DE to 20%, "so as not to create an unfair burden . . . especially in the case of renewable resources."³¹

IOUs Should Provide More Detail on
Energy Efficiency Programs

UCS argued more savings from energy efficiency (EE) can and should be included in the IOUs LTPPs.³² In D.04-12-048 the Commission adopted UCS' proposal and required the IOUs to revise their EE targets in their March 2005 compliance filings.³³

LTPPs Were Deficient in Their
Treatment of Renewables

UCS critiqued the LTPPs and alerted the Commission to possible areas of deficiencies. In particular, UCS focused on the lack of resolution on the types and amounts of renewable generation available to the IOUs going forward, especially for the next ten years.³⁴ The Commission adopted that recommendation: "All IOUs will provide detailed annual analysis of renewable resource potential over the next 10 years in their 2006 LTPPs."³⁵

Transmission Constraints Must Be
Addressed or They Will Impact Renewables

UCS argued that the IOUs must immediately address, plan and implement all new transmission needs, or the lack of transmission will likely undermine the IOUs ability to meet their RPS goals.³⁶ The Commission was persuaded by UCS' argument and directed the IOUs to determine the "optimal way to meet demand," including the use of renewables, and examining whether transmission projects achieve the state's policy preference for renewables.³⁷

Gas Price Forecasts Should Include Scenarios
that Vary Gas Price and Mitigate Gas Price Risks

UCS urged the Commission to require the IOUs to supplement their gas price forecasts using different scenarios since UCS argues that it is imprudent to use a single forecast as the basis for LTPP decisions. In its decision the Commission required the IOUs to update their gas forecasts as necessary in their March 2005 updates and required the utilities to include "fuel price variation" in their future LTPPs.³⁸

The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope.³⁹ Here, however, UCS achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised. The proceeding and the Commission's final decision benefited from UCS' participation.

¹⁸ D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC 2d, 628 at 653.

¹⁹ See D. 03-12-019, discussion D.89-03-063 (31 CPUC 2d 402) (awarding San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and Rochelle Becker compensation in the Diablo Canyon Rate Case because their arguments, although ultimately unsuccessful, forced the utility to thoroughly document the safety issues involved).

²⁰ UCS Opening Brief, pp. 9-12, Testimony of Amy Rochelle, pp. 10-13.

²¹ D.04-12-048, pp. 3-4, 81, 151; FOF 76-80, COL 23, OP 3(c), 17 and 26(e).

²² UCS Opening Brief, p. 27, Testimony of Amy Rochelle, p. 16.

²³ D.04-12-048, p. 87.

²⁴ UCS Opening Brief, p. 19.

²⁵ D.04-12-048, OP 26(c).

²⁶ UCS Opening Comments on PD, pp. 10-12.

²⁷ D.04-12-048, OP 26(c).

²⁸ UCS Opening Brief, pp. 2-3, 12-13, 15-16, Testimony of Amy Rochelle, pp. 5-6, UCS Opening Comments, pp. 2-4, 25.

²⁹ D.04-12-048, OP 1.

³⁰ UCS Opening Testimony, pp. 28-29, UCS Opening Brief, pp. 21-24.

³¹ D.04-12-048, FOF 97-98, COL 31.

³² UCS Opening Brief, pp. 15-17

³³ D.04-12-048, p. 102, OP 13.

³⁴ UCS Opening Brief, pp. 2, 4-8; Testimony of Amy Rochelle, pp. 6, 34-35, 24-26; UCS Reply Brief, pp. 6-8.

³⁵ D.04-12-048, p. 86, FOF 54.

³⁶ UCS Opening Brief, pp. 4-8; Testimony of Rochelle, pp. 19, 20-26; UCS Reply Brief, pp. 6-8.

³⁷ D.04-12-048, pps. 86-87, 94-96.

³⁸ D.04-12-048, pps. 46-47; FOF 26; COL 10; OP 7(g) .

³⁹ See, e.g., D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC 2d 570, 573-574.