V. Substantial Contribution

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. First, did the ALJ or Commissioner adopt one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the intervenor? (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. (See D.98-04-059.)

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. (See D.03-12-019.) With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions TURN made to the proceeding.

In this proceeding, TURN participated actively by conducting discovery and submitting the testimony of William Marcus of JBS Energy, Inc., and of its own witness Michel Florio. TURN provided analyses and recommendations concerning both the capital and expense portions of the revenue requirement calculation, the backbone load factor, and the eligibility criteria for the backbone only rate. TURN supported the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) positions concerning the revenue requirement and recommended additional reductions of approximately one million dollars in operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses and seven million dollars in working cash capital. TURN proposed a higher backbone load factor and generally supported PG&E's backbone-level eligibility criteria.

TURN was signatory to the Gas Accord III, submitted on August 27, 2004, which resolved all outstanding issues. The Gas Accord III reduced the revenue requirement by $7.9 million, adopted a load factor almost exactly the same as recommended by TURN, and adopted PG&E's proposed criteria for eligibility. The Gas Accord III set rates and terms for a three-year period, rather than just 2005 as originally proposed. TURN's substantial contributions are directly reflected in the Gas Accord III itself, as compared to the positions of the utility and other intervenors.

Specifically, in the direct testimonies of Marcus and Florio, TURN recommended the following:

· Adoption of PG&E's three proposed criteria for eligibility for a backbone-only rate (Florio, p. 3);

· Adoption of a higher adjusted system load factor of 74.05%, rather than PG&E's 70.91%, by removing PG&E's proposed "Backbone Throughput Adjustment" (Florio, pp. 4-9);

· Disallowing approximately $0.4 million in O&M expenses due to deferred maintenance (Marcus, pp. 2-3).

· Disallowing approximately $0.6 million in O&M expenses due to a reduction of district fees (Marcus pp. 3-5); and

· Reducing cash working capital by about seven million dollars by including accrued vacation as an offset (Marcus, pp. 5-6).

The adopted Gas Accord III reflected these recommendations in whole or part. Consequently, we conclude that TURN substantially contributed D.04-12-050.

B. Duplication

TURN's compensation in this proceeding should not be reduced for duplication of the showings of other parties. The intervenor compensation statute allow the Commission to award full compensation even where a party's participation has overlapped in part with the showings made by other parties. (Pub. Util. Code § 1802.5.) TURN minimized duplication, for example, by addressing issues concerning cost of service not covered by ORA. Even when TURN shared the same or similar position with another party, TURN's analysis supplemented or complemented the showing of the other party.

C. Benefits to Ratepayers

In D.98-04-059, we directed intervenors filing compensation requests to attempt to monetize the benefits accruing to ratepayers as a result of the intervenor's participation. We stated that such an assessment would ensure that: 1) ratepayers receive value from compensated intervention; and 2) only reasonable costs are compensated. (D.98-04-059, mimeo., p. 73.)

The Gas Accord III reduced O&M expenses by approximately $1.4 million, and reduced the capital component of the revenue requirement by $0.7 million.¹ It is impossible to directly compare TURN's recommended disallowances and reductions with the revenue requirement proposed in the Gas Accord III. However, the adoption of a backbone load factor that is 4% above PG&E's proposed load factor provides a benefit to ratepayers estimated at between $8 and $14 million annually. In sum, TURN's participation appears productive.