3. Contributions to Resolution of Issues

Under § 1802(h), a party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in various ways.¹ 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 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. The Commission has provided compensation even when the position advanced by the intervenor is rejected.²

In this proceeding, Aglet and Weil dealt with several technical issues related to CEMA ratemaking, including the effect of Gas Accord provisions on gas transmission system restoration costs that are eligible for CEMA recovery, and the level of losses already built into PG&E rates. Although Aglet and Weil generally agreed with the showing of ORA, their testimony complemented and supplemented ORA's work.

Weil had an active role in settlement negotiations. He also participated in drafting the settlement agreement, the motion for its approval, the amendments, and the motion for acceptance of the amendments.

Prior to the settlement, PG&E sought CEMA recovery of $75.9 million of electric costs, $2.2 million of gas transmission revenues, and $7 million for correction of a calculation error. Its total request was for $85.1 million. As a compromise in the settlement, PG&E agreed to recover $69.8 million of CEMA revenue requirement, saving ratepayers $15.3 million. ORA and Aglet were the only parties contesting these costs. The settlement explicitly recognizes a PG&E concession of $1.7 million as a result of Weil's testimony. (Settlement Agreement, p. 3.)

The benefits of Aglet's and Weil's participation in this proceeding include the $1.7 million concession by PG&E, a share of the $15.3 million revenue requirement compromise included in the settlement, and a share of the administrative efficiencies gained by eliminating evidentiary hearings. The Commission's approval of the settlement was based at least in part on resolution of technical issues addressed in Weil's testimony. We therefore find that Aglet and Weil have demonstrated that they made a substantial contribution to D.00-04-050.