5. Contribution to Resolution of Issues/Overall Benefit of Participation

Under Pub. Util. Code § 1802(h), a party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in one of several ways. It may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision, or it may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the presiding officer or 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. When appropriate, the Commission has provided compensation even when the position advanced by the intervenor is rejected.³

In addition, in D.98-04-059, the Commission adopted a requirement that a customer must demonstrate that its participation was "productive," as that term is used in § 1801.3, where the Legislature gave the Commission guidance on program administration. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo., at 31-33, and Finding of Fact 42.) In that decision, we note that participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. Customers are directed to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. This exercise assists us in determining the reasonableness of the request and in avoiding unproductive participation.

To begin this review, we note that GSMOL is a membership organization formed at the request of many mobilehome residents throughout the state. It represents tenants of MHPs that have submetered utility systems (electric, gas and water). GSMOL participated actively in the pre-workshop exchanges and in the workshop held on September 15, 1999. It continued to participate in informal written exchanges, and it filed briefs and comments that ultimately led to D.01-05-08.

GSMOL focused on the following:

· Factual and procedural history of the dispute at DeAnza MHP in Santa Cruz;

· Commission jurisdiction and the Legislative History of Pub. Util. Code § 2705.5;

· The definition of "prevailing rate";

· MHPs as sewer corporations; and

· Contribution to the Water Division Workshop Report.

GSMOL was the only party to address the legislative history of Pub. Util. Code § 2705.5.⁴ In D.01-05-058, p. 14 mimeo., we note GSMOL's contribution.

The Commission partially agreed with GSMOL on the "prevailing rate" issue, and agreed with GSMOL's interpretation of "prevailing rate" related to sewer corporations. We believe GSMOL satisfies the "substantial contributions" requirements of § 1803(a). Many of GSMOL's contributions were original and persuasive and we find that GSMOL did make a substantial contribution to D.01-05-058.

However, some aspects of GSMOL's efforts did not result in a substantial contribution. For example, although GSMOL presented a factual and procedural history of De Anza vs. City of Santa Cruz, we relied on D.98-12-097 to inform our inquiry in this investigation rather than GSMOL's history. GSMOL also spent time discussing the case with the media which is not compensable per D.96-06-029.

GSMOL notes that while the Commission did not adopt all of its recommendations in their entirety, portions of its recommendations were adopted in the final decision as well as in the workshop report and the three preliminary decisions that led to D.01-05-058. GSMOL states that the final decision actually gives more generous rate treatment for tenants than what was originally proposed. GSMOL states that one of its fundamental positions in this proceeding has been that tenants in submetered parks should be treated no differently from residential customers who are directly served by water companies. To this end, GSMOL recommended "prevailing rate" treatment, which the Commission adopted. GSMOL actively participated in the workshop, provided operations and maintenance cost data and other actual examples of discrepancies in park billing and operational practices. GSMOL claims that it did not duplicate other parties' analysis in this proceeding. We agree for the most part. GSMOL requested 100% of its costs, and an hourly rate for its attorney of $150/hour, which it characterized as being below a "market rate" of $250/hour.

It is often difficult to assign specific ratepayer savings to contributions by intervenors in quasi-legislation proceedings such as this one, and it is difficult here also. GSMOL contributed to this proceeding's outcome, and it is clear that, at a minimum, ratepayers in MHPs have benefited from GSMOL's contributions on the issues through ensuring that submetered tenants are treated comparably to other utility customers. We do not know precisely how much that benefit might amount to in dollars, but we have an idea from the record how many customers might be affected. Conservatively, there are about 5,000 MHP in California with about 400,000 spaces. Not all are submetered, and not all those are served by regulated water or sewer utilities, but even after allowing for these factors, we find that GSMOL's participation benefited tens of thousands of tenants in addition to GSMOL's own members. GSMOL's expenditure for the most part seems productive in terms of its results and the number of tenants who benefit from those results.