7. Productivity

In D.98-04-059, the Commission adopted a requirement that a customer must demonstrate that its participation was "productive," as that term is used in § 1801.3, where the Legislature gave the Commission guidance on program administration. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo. at 31-33, and Finding of Fact 42.) In that decision, we discuss the requirement that participation must be productive in the sense that the costs of participation should bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits realized through such participation. Customers are directed to demonstrate productivity by assigning a reasonable dollar value to the benefits of their participation to ratepayers. This exercise assists us in determining the reasonableness of the request and in avoiding unproductive participation.

Quantification of benefits is often difficult in rulemaking proceedings, and this proceeding is no exception. Nevertheless, there are qualitative observations we can make that demonstrate the general level of effort by intervenors in this proceeding was justifiable and productive.

D.07-12-051 updated and expanded our policy direction for LIEE programs. It was also a companion decision to D.07-10-032 which set the stage for the next generation of energy efficiency in California. In sum, D.07-12-051 established a new course for LIEE programs in California by adopting a new set policies and program guidance. As such, this proceeding will affect millions of customers and we greatly benefited from getting different expertise, recommendations, ideas, and perspectives, as to both the range of issues and added value of full and thoughtful deliberative public process.

Turning now to the particular showings by the claimants, we find DisabRA's, Greenlining's, and A W.I.S.H.'s respective participation to be generally productive in that the hours and costs each claims for its participation were less than the overall benefits realized.

As noted by DisabRA, its participation was helpful and while it did not prevail on every issue, DisabRA offered many policy proposals that we adopted that served the unique needs of the disabled and low-income customers.

We similarly find Greenlining's and A W.I.S.H.'s participation productive. As noted by Greenlining and A W.I.S.H., we adopted a number of their respective proposals, recommendations, positions, etc. While Greenlining and A W.I.S.H. did not prevail on every issue they advocated for, both were highly successful and helpful during the proceeding. In addition, we find that their active participation benefited ratepayers by overall shaping and directing of a thorough and meaningful public policy debate, leading to the establishment of key policies. We also find that Greenlining's and A W.I.S.H.'s participation benefited the ratepayers by raising a multitude of significant issues and affecting the discussion such that a full record is developed here.

We, therefore, find that Greenlining's and A W.I.S.H.'s efforts were productive in yielding a number of significant, quantifiable, and less quantifiable benefits to the ratepayers by its active role leading to the D.07-12-051. We also find that the benefits of their respective participation generally outweigh the costs.