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.⁴

Even where the Commission does 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 Latino Issues Forum made to the proceeding.

Latino Issues Forum participated in all phases of the proceeding, from filing a prehearing conference statement, briefs and other pleadings to participating in full discovery and in the evidentiary hearings. Latino Issues Forum states it made a substantial contribution to D.04-02-057 in six areas. First, Latino Issues Forum presented testimony that low-moderate income large households face disproportionately large energy bills, because they greatly exceed baseline allowances even when they try their utmost to conserve. Second, Latino Issues Forum presented evidence that low-moderate income large households were more energy efficient than the average household and large affluent households. Third, Latino Issues Forum's briefs argued in favor of our authority to change the baseline system to address its disproportionate impact on certain customers. Fourth, Latino Issues Forum advanced its own proposal on baseline allowances but also supported TURN's proposal, which we ultimately adopted. Fifth, Latino Issues Forum supported the cost-effectiveness of implementing changes in the baseline structure and of community outreach for the new baseline proposals. Sixth, Latino Issues Forum alone opposed the stipulation on common area accounts, conducted discovery on whether all classes of ratepayers would benefit from the settlement, and ultimately concurred that the settlement would benefit customers across all socio-economic levels.

While we did not adopt Latino Issues Forum's specific proposal to increase baseline usage for large low-moderate income households, we find that Latino Issues forum made a substantial contribution in the six areas mentioned in the request for compensation. We relied on Latino Issues Forum's showing that low-moderate income large households face a high energy burden even while conserving, agreed with Latino Issues Forum that incentives for conservation should focus on higher usage levels more likely to be discretionary, relied on Latino Issues Forum's legal argument that consideration of demographic factors was not statutorily proscribed, adopted TURN's proposal, relied on Latino Issues Forum's showing concerning the feasibility of outreach and implementation for baseline relief, and Latino Issues Forum assisted in our determination of whether the common area settlement was in the public interest.

The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope. (See D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC2d 570, 573-574.) Here, Latino Issues Forum achieved a high level of success in demonstrating the merits of the issues it raised. Although we did not adopt Latino Issues Forum's specific proposal, we benefited from Latino Issues Forum's analysis and discussion of all of the issues that it raised.

Latino Issues Forum made a substantial contribution as described above. After we have determined the scope of a customer's substantial contribution, we then look at whether the compensation requested is reasonable.