Contributions to Resolution of Issues

In order to be compensated for participation in a Commission proceeding, a party must demonstrate that it substantially assisted in the making of a Commission order or decision. As we stated in the past, this requirement is necessary to ensure "that the compensated participation provides value to ratepayers."¹ A party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in various ways. It may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision. It may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the ALJ or the 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.

In this proceeding there is no question that DRA made a substantial contribution. DRA focused its participation on the medical baseline program, and was the only party making significant proposals for changes to that program. While the Commission did not adopt every detail of every proposal made by DRA, when viewed from a larger perspective, DRA was very successful in persuading the Commission to adopt its recommendations.

In D.98-04-059, the Commission adopted a requirement that a customer demonstrate that its participation was "productive," as that term is used in § 1801.3, where the Legislature provided guidance on program administration. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo., at 31-33, and Finding of Fact 42.) D.98-04-059 explained that participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. D.98-04-059 directed customers to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. This exercise assists us in determining the reasonableness of the request and in avoiding unproductive participation.

Although it is difficult to quantify how the program changes DRA contributed to will affect utility costs and customer costs, DRA has attempted to quantify the impact. DRA indicates that the current number of medical baseline participants exceeds 100,000. DRA suggests that it makes sense to assume that each current customer will save at least $1.00 per year as a result of the changes it recommended. In addition, many of DRA's recommendations should result in utility cost savings from reduced staff time, more online forms, and streamlined forms and re-certification. As a result, DRA believes that there should be additional savings that will accrue as a result of its contributions, likely in the range of an additional $100,000. On that basis, DRA argues that it contributed to savings of at least $100,000, a benefit in excess of its requested compensation.

DRA's work did not duplicate that of any other party, nor does DRA appear to have put in any disproportionate amount of time or detail.² In addition, DRA's attorney Parks was very effective and professional in the hearing room, particularly given her level of experience.

All of these factors lead us to conclude that the participation of DRA was productive, avoided unreasonable duplication with other parties, and yielded ratepayer benefits in excess of the costs incurred.