7. Customer Interests Represented, Duplication of Effort, Benefits to Ratepayers

The Commission stated in D.98-04-059 that the original NOI to seek intervenor compensation shall contain information that enables the presiding officer to make a preliminary assessment of whether an intervenor will represent customer interests that would otherwise be underrepresented. Additional assessment of this issue is to occur in response to any request for compensation. (Id., pp. 27-28, Finding of Fact 13.) A review of the record shows that the minority language customers whom Intervenors represented would have been underrepresented had Intervenors not participated in this proceeding. As discussed above, Intervenors were the only party to object to the initial proposed

settlement. Intervenors' participation resulted in the modification of the proposed settlement to better address the interests of this class of customers.

The governing intervenor compensation statutes express an intent that the program be administered in a manner that avoids "unnecessary participation that duplicates the participation of similar interests."  (Section  1801.3(f).) Some participation that is duplicative may still make a substantial contribution, but there may be participation that is so duplicative as to be unnecessary and therefore not compensable at all. (See D.98-04-059, p. 49.) Here we consider the record to determine whether the participation of Intervenors was duplicative of the participation of the CSD. We conclude that it was not. While CSD shared some of Intervenors' concerns regarding the interests of this class of customers, it was Intervenors' efforts, acting alone, that resulted in the modification of the proposed settlement agreement to provide broader redress for these customers. No reduction in intervenor compensation is warranted for duplication of effort.

In D.98-04-059, Finding of Fact 42, the Commission indicated that compensation for a customer's participation should be in proportion to the benefit ratepayers receive as a result of that participation. We recognized that putting a dollar value on the benefits accruing to ratepayers as the result of a customer's substantial contribution may be difficult. However, an assessment of whether the requested compensation is in proportion to the benefits achieved helps ensure that ratepayers receive value from compensated intervention, and that only reasonable costs are compensated. (Id., p. 73.) We find that the benefits to ratepayers of Intervenors' participation outweigh the costs of funding this participation. As discussed above, Intervenors' participation played a key role in our adoption of the modified settlement providing for the creation of a $4.85 million Fund to educate non-English speaking customers in the potentially affected service areas. The potential long-term benefits to ratepayers of this Fund exceed the $97,454.91 award of compensation.