ALJ/SRT/hkr DRAFT CA-4
January 23, 2002
Decision __________________
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In Re Request of MCI WORLDCOM, INC. AND SPRINT CORPORATION for Approval to Transfer Control of Sprint Corporation's California Operating Subsidiaries to MCI WORLDCOM, INC.
Application 99-12-012
(Filed December 10, 1999)
OPINION ON REQUESTS FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
OPINION ON REQUESTS FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION 22
C. Requirements for an Award of Compensation 77
D. NOI to Claim Compensation and Timeliness of Request 88
E. Substantial Contribution to Resolution of Issues 88
2. Effect of Termination of Merger 99
4. TURN's Substantial Contribution 1414
5. UCAN's Substantial Contribution 1717
6. Greenlining/LIF's Substantial Contribution 1818
7. Significant Financial Hardship 1919
8. The Reasonableness of Requested Compensation 2020
(1) Amount of TURN's Compensation 2020
(5) Time Spent Preparing TURN's Compensation Request 2525
(1) Amount of UCAN's Compensation 2828
(5) Time Spent Preparing UCAN's Compensation Request 3030
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Title Page
c. Greenlining/LIF's Request 3232
(1) Timing of Compensation Request 3232
(2) Amount of Compensation 3333
(3) Overall Benefits of Greenlining/LIF's Participation 3333
(6) Time Spent Preparing Greenlining/LIF's Compensation Request 3636
(7) Greenlining/LIF's Other Costs 3636
(8) Greenlining/LIF's Award 3636
F. Greenlining/LIF's Rule 1 and 1.5 Motion 3838
G. Waiver of Comment Period 3939
OPINION ON REQUESTS FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
A. Summary
This decision grants intervenor compensation to three intervenors who participated in developing the record of this proceeding, as follows:
· The Utility Reform Network (TURN): $84,616.04, a reduction of $10,019.00 from its requested amount of $94,635.04.
· The Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN): $31,362.18, a reduction of $10,915.63 from its requested amount of $42,277.81.
· The Greenlining Institute/Latino Issues Forum (Greenlining/LIF): $90,647.16, a reduction of $109,273.84 from its requested amount of $199,921.00.
In Decision (D.) 01-02-040, the Commission granted the motion of MCI WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) and Sprint Corporation (Sprint) (collectively, Applicants) to withdraw their merger application. However, in view of the time and effort that the parties-including TURN, UCAN, and Greenlining/LIF (Intervenors)-had expended on developing a record in the proceeding, the Commission took steps to preserve that record for other proceedings, to provide for future use of confidential documents produced in the case (while preserving, as appropriate, their confidentiality), and to ensure that the record could be made part of any future merger application of either Applicant. The Commission also affirmed several rulings the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) made during the course of the proceeding, to which the Intervenors contributed.1
The Commission acknowledged the Intervenors' efforts to develop a comprehensive analysis of Applicants' pricing, disclosure, customer service, and other practices. This evidence was of high quality; had Applicants not terminated the proposed merger, it is clear the evidence would have factored significantly in our merger decision. For various reasons-most notably due process concerns and the fact that the Commission is currently a party to a civil action (Civil Case) against WorldCom, on which Intervenors focused most of their efforts during the proceeding-the Commission did not make substantive findings regarding Applicants' conduct.
Nonetheless, the Commission commented on the high quality of the evidence-and Intervenors' efforts in developing it-in its decision granting the Applicants' motion to withdraw the merger application. We also tolled certain statutes of limitations on other actions against Applicants pending the outcome of the Civil Case, and took extra steps to ensure that confidential documents in this record might be used in future proceedings involving Applicants. Further, we required Applicants to disclose the existence of this record in future applications to this Commission. Finally, we commented on the appropriateness of an investigation into the Applicants' conduct once the Civil Case is concluded.
Thus, this is not a garden-variety case in which a routine application is withdrawn early in the proceeding. This case lasted for a year, and involved intensive discovery and a full, 13-day evidentiary hearing before Applicants withdrew their application. In this extraordinary case, we are resolute that Intervenors' efforts in developing the record should not go unrewarded.
Applicants oppose the request for compensation on the ground that Intervenors did not contribute to a decision that will have immediate beneficial effects for ratepayers. Applicants also allege the Commission lacks authority under the laws governing intervenor compensation to grant an award where, as here, the intervenor plays no role in defeating the proposed merger. Applicants assert that "the commission does not have untrammeled discretion in taking property from Applicants to fund activities of intervenors, nor may it depart from the norms established by its own precedent without satisfactory explanation."2
We reject Applicants' premise and its legal challenge to our discretion to award compensation. While we do not grant Intervenors the entirety of their claimed compensation, we find the intervenor compensation statute grants us authority to award compensation in a case such as this.
Finally, we address two issues involving only Greenlining/LIF. We resolve the first issue, related to the timeliness of the intervenor compensation request, favorably to Greenlining/LIF. Greenlining/LIF filed its request for compensation on August 17, 2001, 32 days after the 60-day deadline of July 16, 2001. Greenlining/LIF seeks a waiver of the 60-day deadline imposed in Pub. Util. Code § 1804(c). We find that under the specific circumstances of this case, waiver is appropriate and that we may consider the request for compensation.
As to the second issue, we deny Greenlining/LIF's motion for recovery of attorneys' fees based on Commission Rules 1 and 1.5, on the ground there is no basis to sanction Applicants for violation of the Commission's code of ethics.
1 One such ruling affirmed in D.01-02-040, relating to the Commission's jurisdiction over the Internet backbone, was removed from the decision on rehearing (D.01-05-062), but the other rulings in D.01-02-040 remain.
2 Applicants' Response to Request for Award of Compensation to The Utility Reform Network (Response), filed May 10, 2001, at 1.
