4. Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, did the Administrative Law Judge (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(i).) 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(i) and 1802.5.) As described in § 1802(i), 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

Should the Commission 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 Green Power made to the proceeding.

Green Power states that it made many substantial contributions to D.04-06-014, D.04-06-015, and D.04-07-026, as well as to this ongoing Rulemaking. Specifically, Green Power identifies 1) its recommendation for the use of a single, all-in cost with time-of-delivery profiling as an approach to valuing different types of electrical products (Compensation Request, pp. 6-7); 2) its contribution to the adopted definition of a Renewable Energy Credit, or REC (id., pp. 7-8); its recommendations regarding the definition, establishment, and reporting of baselines and annual and incremental procurement targets (id., p. 8); its approach to accounting for capital costs in the proxy plant approach to calculating the market price referent (id., pp. 8-9); its recommendations regarding bid sequencing and multiple bids (id., p. 10); and on consideration of qualitative factors in the least cost and best fit ranking process (id., pp. 10-11).

We find Green Power participated extensively in both RPS proceedings leading to the three decisions cited. While Green Power was not 100% successful on every argument presented, the decisions reflect the significant impacts of Green Power's advocacy.

The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope and comprehensive participation by the intervenor. (See D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC2d 570, 573-574.) Here, Green Power achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised, and in the areas where we did not adopt Green Power's position, we nevertheless benefited from Green Power's analysis and discussion of the issues it raised.

We note that Green Power is seeking compensation for work it performed in R.01-10-024, as well as in this proceeding, R.04-04-026. Because all open RPS issues that were being addressed in R.01-10-024 were subsumed into R.04-04-026 (see OIR, p. 1), this is the proper proceeding for Green Power to seek compensation for its RPS work in R.01-10-024.

Green Power made a substantial contribution as described above. After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.