3. Substantial Contribution
In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding, we look at several things. First, we look at whether the Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (§ 1802(i).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we look at 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. (§§ 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 TURN made to the proceeding.
TURN claims compensation for its contribution in a number of issues. We evaluate its contribution in each major issue below.
3.1. Net Revenue
The electric line extension allowance is calculated using the following general formula:
Allowance = Net Revenue
COS factor
The net revenue is the annual revenue expected to be received by the utility from the customer residing in the dwelling.
The calculation of the net revenue was identified in the April 4, 2006 assigned Commissioner's ruling and scoping memo (scoping memo) as an issue to be addressed in this proceeding. Only TURN and the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) proposed changes to the current method of calculation the net revenue. TURN proposed a method based on marginal costs, which we did not adopt.4 However, without TURN's participation, we would not have been able to examine this issue in as much detail and the record would have not been as fully developed. We find TURN made a substantial contribution regarding this issue.
3.2. COS Factor
Associated with the cost of the line extension facilities that go into the utility's rate base are costs for such things as depreciation, return, income taxes, property taxes, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, administrative and general costs, and franchise fees and uncollectibles. The COS factor is the ratio of such costs to the cost of the line extension. The scoping memo identified whether the COS factor should account for replacement in perpetuity as an issue.
TURN and several other parties recommended that the COS factor include a component for the cost of replacing line extension assets at any time during their useful lives. We found that such replacement should be included in the COS factor for a 60-year period. SDG&E argued that depreciation provided for such replacement. TURN argued that this was not the case, and we agreed. Our resolution of this issue was similar to TURN's recommendation, and TURN made a substantial contribution regarding this issue.
3.3. COO Charge
The scoping memo identified the cost components to be recovered by the monthly COO charge as an issue. Costs in excess of the allowance are paid for by the applicant for the line extension. Excess refundable costs are subject to refund to the applicant over a 10-year period. For any portion of the refundable amount that has not been refunded to the applicant after 12 months for electric service or 36 months for gas service, the applicant is charged a monthly COO charge to recover the O&M costs and other costs of the facilities.
TURN recommended that the COO charge be treated in the same manner as the COS factor and should include a component for the cost of replacing line extension assets at any time during their useful lives. We found that such replacement should be included in the COO charge for a 60-year period. Our resolution of this issue was similar to TURN's recommendation, and TURN made a substantial contribution regarding this issue.
3.4. Publicly-Owned Utilities (POUs)
The scoping memo identified one of the issues as whether line extension allowances should continue to be offered in portions of the utilities' service territories where POUs are offering service. TURN argued that the allowance calculation should be consistent across the utilities' service territories. We found that we would not prohibit the utilities from offering the same line extension allowances in areas served by POUs that are offered in the rest of the utilities service territories. This is consistent with TURN's recommendation, and TURN made a substantial contribution regarding this issue.
3.5. Sub-Transmission
The scoping memo identified one of the issues as whether SCE's sub-transmission costs should be considered distribution costs for the purpose of calculating line extension allowances. SCE recommended that such costs should be included. Only TURN recommended that such costs should not be included. We did not adopt TURN's recommendation. However, without TURN's participation, we would not have been able to examine this issue in as much detail and the record would have not been as fully developed. We find TURN made a substantial contribution regarding this issue.
The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope. (D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC 2d 570, 573-74.) As discussed above, we find that although we did not adopt all of TURN's recommendations, it made a substantial contribution to all issues.
3 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.
4 TURN's recommendations were similar to DRA's, but not identical.
