Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, did the ALJ or Commission adopt one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer? (See § 1802(h).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, did the customer's participation materially supplement, complement, or contribute to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision? (See §§ 1802(h) & 1802.5.) As described in § 1802(h), 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.¹

Even where the Commission does not adopt any of the customer's recommendations, compensation may be awarded if, in the judgment of the Commission, the customer's participation substantially contributed to the decision or order.² With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions TURN made to the proceeding.

TURN participated in prehearing procedures, the evidentiary hearing, and post-hearing briefing. TURN indicates that its goal in participating in this proceeding was to help the Commission critically evaluate Edison's application and to offer recommendations so that the proposed project could be improved to the benefit of ratepayers. After participating in the evidential hearing, TURN offered a series of 14 major recommendations in its opening brief. As TURN documents in its compensation request, the Commission ultimately adopted 13 of these recommendations (12 explicitly and one implicitly). These adopted recommendations are set forth in the following table.

Recommendation	Commission Action
1- Any changes made by FERC to the PPA should be subject to subsequent CPUC review and approval prior to Edison accepting any modifications that have potential rate impacts.	Adopted in D.03-12-059 at Ordering Paragraph 2.
2- Direct Edison to modify the PPA to eliminate the explicit Mobile-Sierra waiver contained in Section 16.01 of the PPA and thereby remove the potential for Mountainview Power Company to seek unilateral rate changes at FERC under a lenient standard of review.	Edison amended the PPA to remove this waiver. Id. at 25.
3- In order to protect bundled ratepayers from the risk of stranded resource commitments resulting from the combination of potential new direct access and a restart of the Mohave plant, determine that all costs associated with Mountainview should become the financial responsibility of all customers currently ineligible for direct access for at least the first ten years.	Adopted. Id. at 35.
4- Due to the significant share of total costs associated with the acquisition and construction of Mountainview that are fixed, reduce the supplemental contingency by 50% in order to limit incentives for overspending.	Also concerned about potential cost over-runs, the Commission set a 5% cost over-run contingency rather than the more strict limit urged by TURN. Id. at 49.
5- Amend the PPA to require Commission pre-approval, on a relatively expedited timeline, in the event that Mountainview Power Company seeks to make any capital expenditure references in section 8.09 of the PPA in excess of $10 million unless emergency conditions require immediate action.	Adopted. Id. at 52.
6- Direct Edison to compile a summary of all cost categories and forecasted amounts that would be recoverable from ratepayers for Mountainview and entered both into the record of the proceeding and appended to the PPA as part of Edison's FERC filing.	Adopted and set forth as Appendix B to D.03-12-059
7- Increase the availability targets in the PPA (tied to incentive payments) by 2% for both summer and winter months in order to reflect terms in comparable PPAs and to comport with the Mountainview Power Company's own expectations regarding the performance of Mountainview.	Adopted. Id. at 51.
8- Clarify the heat rate targets in Section 12.01 of the PPA and establish a relationship between future heat rate targets and betterments.	Adopted. Id. at 24.
9- Deny Edison's request for rate recovery of its option payments to Sequoia if the acquisition is not approved or consummated.	Adopted. Id. at 55.
10- Accept Edison's late filed proposals for modifying PPA Section 6.03(a) (Environmental Penalties) and Section 7.02 (Fuel Purchases by Mountainview Power Company).	Adopted. Id. at 24.
11- Codify Edison's proposed treatment of cash working capital in order to limit disputes in the next general rate case.	Adopted. Id. at 55.
12- Conclude that the Affiliate Transaction Rules apply to the relationship between Edison and Mountainview Power Company but agree to a one-time waiver for the application of those rules.	Granted a one-time waiver after finding that it is in the public interest. Id. at 29.
13- Request that the Commission declare that the ownership arrangement proposed by Edison represents a one-time deal and will not be considered in any future proceeding.	Did not explicitly adopt this statement but indicated that "we find ourselves in the same place as TURN: We prefer a straight utility-owned generation project, and argue that there are `vexing weaknesses' with the PPA." Id. at 22.
14- Levelize recovery of Mountainview's fixed costs over the first ten years of operation in order to minimize the early-year rate impacts associated with traditional straight-line depreciation.	Shared concerns about cost to ratepayers but determined that early-year impacts would not be significant. Id. at 49.

The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope. See, e.g., D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC 2^d 570, 573-574. Here, however, TURN achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised. In the only area where we did not explicitly adopt TURN's position in whole or in part, we benefited from TURN's participation.

As described above, TURN made a substantial contribution to this proceeding. We now determine whether TURN's compensation request is reasonable.