5. 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) and 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.⁴

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. For example, if a customer provided a unique perspective that enriched the Commission's deliberations and the record, the Commission could find that the customer made a substantial contribution. With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace made to the proceeding.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace identifies two main areas where it believes it made a substantial contribution to D.04-05-055. First, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace participated in settlement discussions regarding the future of the DCISC and ultimately was one of the settling parties. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed on an additional round of comments on San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's petition to modify the appointment process and various other aspects of the functioning of the DCISC.

The DCISC was created as the result of a settlement when the reasonableness of the costs associated with the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant was being examined. The committee was established to "review Diablo Canyon operations for the purpose of assessing the safety of operations and suggesting any recommendations for safe operation." (D.88-12-083, App. C, Att. A, Section I.1.)

Mothers for Peace filed its petition to modify D.88-12-083 on November 29, 2001. On March 12, 2003, the Mothers for Peace filed a petition seeking to transfer a pending Petition to Modify D.88-12-083 from A.00-11-038 et al.⁵ to A.02-11-017 et al. (the instant application). Responses were filed by CEC, DCISC, and PG&E. A reply was filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, which also identifies several elements of its petition that the Commission adopted in D.04-05-055.

Consistent with the Stipulation, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace submitted a Revised Petition to Modify D.88-12-083 seeking changes to the DCISC selection process and a new requirement that DCISC establish an office in San Luis Obispo. The petition proposed, and we adopted, an improvement to the existing nomination process to streamline the process and to eliminate any concerns regarding conflict of interest. The petition requested that the Commission require that DCISC nominees have "knowledge, background and experience in nuclear safety issues in the field of nuclear power facilities" in lieu of the existing requirement of "knowledge, background and experience in the field of nuclear power facilities." The Commission also adopted this change.

We did not adopt the request to add a fourth member to the DCISC, specifically a member of the San Luis Obispo community. Likewise, we did not make changes to the DCISC compensation provisions that were requested, but rather found that there was ample record that the DCISC had been actively
fulfilling its duties. We agreed with San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace that to the extent that the DCISC has an office, the location of the office should be in San Luis Obispo, but did not require that an office be established in San Luis Obispo as requested. We revised the scope of DCISC responsibilities as requested, stating: "The DCISC shall undertake public outreach in the affected community, including, but not limited to, assuring that the DCISC meetings are videotaped and broadcast."

Second, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace conducted cross-examination related to the replacement of steam generators at Diablo Canyon. The request for compensation states that "some of our concerns led to the eventual settlement of TURN, Aglet Consumers Alliance, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and PG&E which removed the replacement of steam generators [from] the GRC." (Request, p. 1.) San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace was not a signatory to the generation settlement which recommended that the issue of replacement of Diablo Canyon's steam generators be removed from the GRC, but it is clear that San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace conducted cross examination on this topic, and that these efforts influenced the outcome of the settlement on generation issues.

Although other parties supported various aspects of the petition, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, as the petitioner, provided the initial impetus for
consideration of these issues and put forward the opening rationale to support
the changes it proposed. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace also provided a
unique local perspective that other participants in the case could not bring to the table. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace was not successful on every argument presented, but the decision reflects the significant impacts of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's advocacy even where ultimately rejected the position advocated. Here, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised. In the areas where we did not adopt San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's position in whole or in part, we benefited from San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's analysis and discussion of all of the issues which it raised.

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace made a substantial contribution as described above. We next look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.