4. 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.²

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.³ With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions Adams made to the proceeding.

Adams states that he participated in all of the public workshops conducted throughout California. These meetings, most of which were run by a professional facilitator, culminated in 40 Proposed Rule Changes (PRCs) adopted by group consensus, withdrawal of 15 PRCs, and a determination that that eight PRCs should be taken through a dispute process that led eventually to the Commission decision.

Adams proposed and sponsored PRC 57, dealing with the sealing of service lateral ducts, to which the parties agreed by consensus. He contributed to and was one of the sponsors of PRCs 15, 29, 48, 58, 28 and 32, all of them consensus PRCs or withdrawals of PRCs adopted by the Commission. Adams also proposed six of the eight disputed rule changes, with all six rejected by the Commission. Adams claims that his efforts were not duplicative of others and that he supplemented positions taken by CPSD.

GO 95 and GO 128 represent complex rules governing underground and overhead utilities. Because of his experience with the Commission and his subsequent electrical safety consulting work, Adams brought knowledge to the subject areas. His detailed time sheets show that he traveled to and participated in all of the workshops conducted prior to the Commission decision. On the other hand, six PRCs to which Adams devoted a substantial amount of time were rejected by the Commission. In the case of four of them (PRC 59, 60, 61 and 62), the Commission found that the changes in tree-trimming standards proposed by Adams had been considered and rejected seven years earlier in another rulemaking proceeding. We find that Adams made a substantial contribution to seven of the 63 PRCs considered in this proceeding, but that his contribution to other aspects of the proceeding was minimal and even counterproductive. We will adjust the amount awarded to Adams accordingly.