5. 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." (D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d, 628 at 653.)

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. With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions UCAN made to the proceeding.

UCAN aggressively opposed the proposed settlement for SDG&E:

"ORA and SDG&E have entered into a Settlement that awards SDG&E (an) excessive increase that is not justified by the evidentiary record and cannot be afforded by a community hit hard by rate increases since the 2000-2001 Energy Crisis. Moreover, the failure of the Settlement to incorporate the many efficiencies that should have been brought by a merger, a reorganization and technology-driven productivity is a fatal flaw that undermines the very foundation of the Settlement.

"One of the primary obstacles presented by the Settlement Agreement is its lack of specificity. Judging from the Settlement and its accompanying exhibits, UCAN is unable to establish the basis for the proposed revenue requirement agreed to by the two primary parties." (UCAN Comments,⁴ p. 2.)

UCAN also objected that the proposed settlement increases SDG&E's distribution revenues by 27.3% over the base of 2001-recorded costs that were used to forecast the test year. The total proposed increase would equate to an annual increase in electric operations costs of almost 7%.

UCAN identified five basic deficiencies with the SDG&E proposed settlement:

1. Annual revenue requirement was not supported by the record;

2. Failed to incorporate productivity gains that were ordered by the Commission and/or could be reasonably imputed;

3. Failed to address controversy over corporate center costs allocated to SDG&E by Sempra Energy;

4. Did not adequately address the specific adjustments proposed by UCAN and FEA; and,

5. Imposed costs on ratepayers contrary to Commission policy.

The Commission adopted the SDG&E Settlement over UCAN's objections, but in doing so the Commission found:

"...the SDG&E Settlement makes specific adjustments in the consideration of a number of issues raised by UCAN. These adjustments include $2.337 million in Customer Accounts, $3.651 million in benefits related to issues raised by UCAN among others, a $14.6 million working cash rate base reduction incremental to ORA's position, and $1.8 million in Corporate Center expenses in addition to substantial end-of-hearing concessions by SDG&E." (D.04-12-015, mimeo, p. 46.)

Additionally, UCAN made numerous significant recommendations that were all considered, in the two proposed decisions of ALJ Long and of the original assigned Commissioner, Carl Wood. While not all of UCAN's recommendations were adopted or included in the SDG&E Settlement, it is clear that the Settling Parties believed it was necessary to demonstrate that UCAN's concerns were adequately addressed. As shown above, UCAN's positions were substantially different from ORA, with sizeable adjustments exceeding ORA's positions. Thus, we find that UCAN made a substantial contribution to this proceeding and directly affected the Settlement.

⁴ Comments of UCAN in Opposition to the Partial Settlement of the SDG&E Cost of Service Application dated January 20, 2004.