5. Substantial Contribution

Greenlining states that its involvement in this proceeding was unique, providing a perspective presented by no other party because its comments focused on minority-owned businesses and workplace diversity. Greenlining states that the Commission did not explicitly address these issues in its order but that the Commission has awarded compensation in cases where there is "no direct evidence of (an) impact" on the Commission's order. Greenlining reminds the Commission that its participation "did provide to the Commission protection against harm to minority contractors, which the Commission has stated is one of its high priorities."

Greenlining's only filing in this proceeding was reply comments on February 23, 2004, on behalf of minority contractors. However, Greenlining does not make the connection between its advocacy on behalf of minority contractors and D.04-12-056 except to state that its "initial inquiries and efforts" with utilities "may have been responsible for leading the utilities to hold a position that mitigated any negative impacts to minority construction contractors." It does not specify how the utilities' positions protected minority construction contractors or which among those positions the Commission adopted in D.04-12-056. To the contrary, D.04-12-056 neither mentions minority contractors nor adopts the positions of the utilities. Otherwise Greenlining states its contributions are compensable because no other party spoke on behalf of minority contractors. Greenlining does not summarize its position in this case or reiterate its recommendations. Greenlining did not participate in the proceeding on issues relating to minimum wages or project labor agreements, issues raised after Greenlining filed its only set of comments.

Greenlining has not shown that the Commission adopted a contention or recommendation made by Greenlining. It is not enough that Greenlining was the only party in the proceeding representing a specified interest. There must be some connection between Greenlining's position and the Commission's decision. On the basis of the information of record, and upon a review of Greenlining's request for compensation and D.04-12-056, we cannot find a connection between Greenlining's participation in this proceeding and our resolution of issues in D.04-12-056.

In D.04-05-005, we denied Greenlining compensation in another proceeding on the basis that Greenlining had not demonstrated that it had made a substantial contribution. In that decision, we found that Greenlining's participation "in and by itself cannot constitute a `substantial contribution.' Stated differently, within the meaning of § 1802(h), Greenlining did not assist us in any of the ways mentioned by the statute (i.e., we did not adopt, in whole or in part, a factual or legal contention or policy or procedural recommendation made by Greenlining). Morever, within the meaning of § 1802.5, Greenlining did not materially supplement, complement, or contribute to the presentation of another party. Absent a substantial contribution by Greenlining to D.03-11-015, the statute does not allow for an award of compensation for Greenlining's participation." We make similar findings here.

We encourage Greenlining to continue its efforts in our proceedings but cannot provide compensation to Greenlining or any other party without a convincing showing that its participation made a difference to our resolution of issues.