4. Contributions to Resolution of Issues

A party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in several ways. (Section 1802(h).) 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 ALJ 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. The Commission has provided compensation even when the position advanced by the intervenor is rejected.²

UCAN asserts that D.99-05-051 is final as to the issues dealing with SDG&E's implementation of the post-rate freeze mechanisms in Phase I of this proceeding. Many of the unresolved issues will be deferred to Phase II. However, as a decision in that second phase is not expected to be issued until the end of 1999 or sometime in 2000, UCAN states that it will seek compensation separately for the second phase. At this time, UCAN seeks compensation only for work done in early 1999.

According to UCAN, it made a number of factual and legal contentions that were incorporated into D.99-05-051 by virtue of its approval of the April 15 settlement. In the settlement agreement itself, the parties recognized UCAN's contributions. (Settlement Agreement, p. 3.)

Specifically, UCAN believes it substantially contributed to D.99-05-051 in four areas:

1. Disposition of the Revenue Reduction Bonds. This issue was resolved on an interim basis after extensive negotiations among the parties and revisions by the Commission. As UCAN indicated in its March 2^nd protest, UCAN opposed a straight give-back of the monies as proposed by SDG&E. The final decision reflected UCAN's position by deferring the matter to Phase II.

2. Communications Plan. UCAN proposed and the parties adopted the Communications Plan objectives, and it was very active in shaping the language to be used by SDG&E in communicating the end of the rate freeze to SDG&E customers.


3. Utility Commodity Service. UCAN opposed SDG&E's Commodity PBR proposal and its intimation that it could go outside of the PX to purchase power. This matter was deferred to Phase II, as recommended by the parties. In the interim, SDG&E agreed to continue to provide commodity default service without a PBR and without purchasing from outside of the PX.


4. Rate Design. UCAN agreed with SDG&E that the current rate design would be used as an interim measure. The parties discussed some of the rate design challenges and agreed to defer the controversial matters to Phase II.

We agree that UCAN has made a substantial contribution to D.99-05-051 in the areas it identifies.