Substantial Contribution

CEC seeks compensation for worked performed in this proceeding in 2005 and 2006. In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. First, whether the Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (Pub. Util. Code § 1802(i).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, whether the customer's participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party or to the development of a fuller record that assisted the Commission in making its decision. (Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801.3(f) 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.³

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 CEC made to the proceeding.

CEC claims substantial contribution to D.05-12-041 by submitting testimony and briefs. CEC relies heavy on the assertions made in its February 14, 2006 request regarding its substantial contribution to support this amended request. As we stated in D.06-05-037, CEC advocated in favor of tariffs drafted by Local Government Commission Coalition (LGCC); argued that CCAs should be subject to the same requirements for the renewable portfolio standard as other utilities; proposed the use of net metering; suggested certain customer education efforts; and presented a jurisdiction argument under AB 117. (See D.06-05-037, mimeo. at p. 6.)

Since CEC relies on its February 14, 2006 request to establish substantial contribution, we turn to our findings on substantial contribution based on this February 14, 2006 request set forth in D.06-05-037. As we found in D.06-05-037, CEC presented thoughtful testimony and analysis in this proceeding and the Commission adopted a number of its proposals related to specific tariff provisions. However, much of what CEC proposed was simply supportive of the arguments presented by the CCAs represented by LGCC. Furthermore, this proceeding did not address many of the arguments presented by CEC and even rejected some of its arguments, including CEC's position on the extent of the Commission's jurisdiction over CCA. But some of CEC's work complemented that of LGCC. Accordingly, we find that CEC made a substantial contribution to D.05-12-041 and subsequent decisions on some issues. Our finding on substantial contribution is consistent with D.06-05-037.

Regarding CEC's work on implementation issues, we find that CEC's participation constitutes substantial contribution because we did take into consideration and even incorporated some of CEC's comments when preparing the Resolution E-4013, which implemented portions of D.05-12-041.

Contributions of Other Parties

Section 1801.3(f) requires an intervenor to avoid participation that unnecessarily duplicates that of similar interests otherwise adequately represented by another party, or participation unnecessary for a fair determination of the proceeding. Section 1802.5, however, allows an intervenor to be eligible for full compensation if their participation materially supplements, complements, or contributes to that of another party if that participation makes a substantial contribution to the commission order.

As noted above, we find CEC made a substantial contribution in some areas of this proceeding. However, CEC's contribution was unnecessarily duplicative in some areas, as discussed in D.06-05-037.

³ D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.