Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, did the ALJ or Commissioner adopt one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the intervenor? (See Section 1802(h).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, did the customer's participation materially supplement, complement, or contribute to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision? (See Sections 1802(h), 1802.5.) As described in Section 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.²

Should the Commission 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.³ With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions WEC made to the proceeding.

Solar Alternative

WEC first identified solar as one of the few generation resources available on Black Mesa and continued to provide the Commission with information concerning solar generation alternatives throughout the proceeding.⁴ The Commission adopted WEC's recommendation for an evaluation of the solar alternative to Mohave. In D.04-12-016, Finding of Fact (FOF) 19, the Commission stated "Edison should investigate alternative resources to first allow for a meaningful comparison of Mohave's costs with other alternatives including the WEC solar ..." Again in Conclusion of Law 5 and Ordering Paragraph 3, the decision references studying proposals for alternatives to Mohave that were advanced by WEC.

Water Issues

WEC provided the Commission with information on the cultural significance of the N-Aquifer to both the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation, and worked within the Hopi and Navajo Tribal Councils to unify opposition to the continued use of the N-Aquifer for coal slurrying purposes after 2005. The unified opposition helped the Commission to focus on exploration into alternative water sources. In FOF 7, the Commission found that "The Hopi and Navajos oppose further pumping of the N-Aquifer for coal slurry purposes post 2005."

WEC also influenced the Commission to ask the parties to brief the water supply issue. From this briefing, the Commission learned that the Mohave plant itself would experience water supply problems post 2026. FOF 12 says: "The Mohave plant itself needs additional water for cooling purposes over and above the water extracted from the slurry mixture and Mohave's contract for this cooling water expires in 2006: there is no assurance that water will be available after the contract terminates."

WEC also provided the Commission with extensive information on the C-Aquifer, which is currently the subject of a feasibility study the Commission authorized SCE to fund in D.04-12-016.

Authorization for Environmental Upgrades

WEC argued throughout the proceeding that the Commission did not have sufficient information to proceed with the refurbishment of Mohave until the water and coal issues were resolved. Other parties, particularly the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation and Peabody, urged the Commission to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for the required upgrades. However, the Commission adopted WEC's recommendation. D.04-12-016, FOF 16 states: "Until there is a resolution of the water and coal supply issues, this Commission does not have enough data to determine if the future functioning of Mohave as a coal-burning facility is in the public interest and that the necessary $1.2 billion investment will inure to the benefit of Edison ratepayers."

Overall, WEC achieved a significant level of success on the issues it raised, and WEC made a substantial contribution to this proceeding. We now determine whether WEC's compensation request is reasonable.