5. Greenling/LIF's Contribution to Resolution of the Issues

Greenlining/LIF states that as to USP&C, it took depositions, conducted extensive discovery, filed a motion to compel discovery and reviewed the information produced by USP&C, participated in the evidentiary hearings, filed a post-hearing brief, and filed a response to USP&C's appeal. As to Pacific, Greenlining/LIF states that it urged the Commission to name Pacific as a respondent to the OII, conducted limited discovery, and urged the Commission to enforce existing rules and laws designed to protect consumers from unauthorized charges.

Greenlining/LIF claims to have represented low-income and minority customers who are "most often victimized by the practices" at issue in the proceeding. Greenlining/LIF states that it did not duplicate the efforts of CSD because CSD did not focus on Pacific. As to USP&C, Greenlining/LIF asserts that it "filled in parts of the factual record not established by CSD." Greenlining/LIF, however, offered no citations to the record to support its assertion. Having presented no witnesses, and offered no exhibits, it is not clear how Greenlining/LIF could have supplied factual evidence for the record.

A careful review of the record leads us to conclude that Greenlining/LIF simply did not prevail on any issue or otherwise contribute to our reasoning in resolving the investigation. (See Attachment A.) Greenlining/LIF's effort to have Pacific named as a respondent was unsuccessful. The Commission's directions to Pacific in D.01-04-036 (to strictly enforce its billing and collections tariff) was a reminder to Pacific of its pre-existing obligation. We further note that the only new direction to Pacific, to modify its tariff to preclude a practice known as "dilution," was not advanced by Greenlining/LIF.

Greenlining/LIF also asserts that USP&C is a public utility as defined by Section 216, and as such required to pay intervenor compensation awards, subject to Section 1807. Since Greenlining/LIF has not made a substantial contribution to this proceeding, the Commission's authority to order a billing agent to fund an award of compensation is an issue we need not reach today.

Like Greenlining/LIF, we want to protect the interests of vulnerable low-income and language minority customers. We note, however, that Greenlining/LIF did not sponsor any witness claiming to have been a victim of the practices of USP&C, nor did Greenlining/LIF present evidence that USP&C targeted any discrete group of customers for unauthorized charges. Even limited participation in Commission proceedings will satisfy the statutory requirements if it leads to a substantial contribution to the Commission's decision on at least one substantive legal issue. However, Greenlining/LIF's failure to make a substantial contribution precludes the Commission from granting it an award of compensation in this proceeding.