Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, did the Administrative Law Judge (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(h).) Second, did the customer's participation materially supplement, complement, or contribute to the presentation of another party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision? (See §§1802(h) and 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, 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.⁵

Even where the Commission does 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.⁶ For example, if a customer provided a unique perspective that enriched the Commission's deliberations and the record, the Commission could find that the customer made a substantial contribution. With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions Greenlining made to the proceeding.

Here, Greenlining states that this rulemaking was the result of the petition which Greenlining filed in October, 2002. Among several proposals in its petition, Greenlining proposed to eliminate the exclusions permitted by § 8.5 of GO 156. The rulemaking put this proposal out for comment, and D.03-11-024 adopted this proposal. Greenlining states it also proposed that the Commission standardize GO 156 reporting and verification. D.03-11-024 directed that, after the conclusion of the rulemaking, the Commission hold a workshop to more fully address this issue. Greenlining participated in all aspects of this rulemaking, i.e., filing comments, attending the prehearing conference, etc.

The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope. (See D.98-04-028, 70 CPUC2d 570, 573-574.) Here, Greenlining achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised. Most of the other issues raised by Greenlining were alternative proposals to those adopted by the Commission. In areas where we did not adopt Greenlining's position in whole or in part, we benefited from Greenlining's analysis and discussion of all of the issues it raised. We find that Greenlining made a substantial contribution as described above.

After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.