3. Substantial Contribution
In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. First, we look at whether the Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (§ 1802(i).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we look at whether the customer's participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party. (§§ 1801.3(f) and 1802.5.)
As described in § 1802(i), 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.3
With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions UCAN made to the proceeding.
In its complaint, UCAN charged that the defendant (MCI) was violating California law and Commission regulations regarding required authorization for placing charges on telephone bills. From mid May until June 20, 2007, UCAN and MCI communicated extensively and jointly resolved UCAN's remaining issues through the Settlement Agreement which was adopted by the Commission.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, MCI acknowledged that many California customers were erroneously charged fees. UCAN identified three key concerns in this proceeding: (1) the reasons(s) why the customers were erroneously billed charges; (2) the reason(s) why the accounts were not credited by their customer service representatives despite complaints; and (3) prevention and prompt resolution of further billing errors for other consumers. The Settlement Agreement resolved all issues in the complaint.
Rule 12.1(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that a settlement must be reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest for the Commission to approve it. The findings in D.08-03-0154 affirm that the Settlement Agreement between UCAN and MCI did provide all three criteria.
UCAN argues that the Settlement Agreement reached promotes the fair and proper treatment of the customers the Commission is required to protect as well as compliance with all applicable statutes and Commission decisions. We affirm that UCAN's participation in this proceeding made a substantial contribution to D.08-03-015.
3 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
4 See D.08-03-015, pp. 5-8.
