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.

In this proceeding, API intervened early and took an initial critical view of the value to ratepayers of the Citizens acquisition and the SJW merger, and of CalAm's synergies savings assumptions. API urged the Commission to strike a better balance between ratepayers' risks and rewards and the risks and rewards of CalAm.

As the proceeding progressed, API did extensive financial and policy analysis in support of its position, concluding that under most reasonable scenarios CalAm would suffer substantial losses under the application's sharing proposal. According to the Commission's decision:

"During the evidentiary hearings, API devoted considerable time and effort to drawing out of CalAm the details and assumptions underlying the synergies analysis and Application sharing proposal. Surfacing those details and assumptions, which had not been developed elsewhere in the record in a consistent and understandable way, proved critical in analyzing whether the acquisition and sharing proposal should be approved."

The Commission's decision notes API's key role in moving the applicants to offer an alternative sharing proposal that ultimately was adopted. The decision's substantive analysis of ratepayer benefits, quantifiable benefits, stayout benefits and rate effects relies on various API analyses.

Alone among protesting parties, API participated in virtually all of the 26 days of hearing required in this proceeding. API also addressed all of the ALJ's requests for additional information, analyses and evidence needed to bolster the record. API successfully argued that the SJW merger would not necessarily benefit ratepayers, and the merger application ultimately was withdrawn.

Quantification of major benefits of API's participation is reflected in Table 3 of the decision. It shows that ratepayers would receive present-worth benefits of between $41 million and $75 million out of total quantified benefits from the acquisition of $100 million to $136 million.

In sum, the Commission adopted API's recommendations on several major issues and relied extensively on API analyses. API's participation did not duplicate the showings of other parties. We find that API has demonstrated that it made a substantial contribution to D.01-09-057.

API filed this request for compensation on November 26, 2001. The request is unopposed.