5. Substantial Contribution to Resolution of Issues

A party may make a substantial contribution to a decision in one of several ways.⁵ It may offer a factual or legal contention upon which the Commission relied in making a decision, or it may advance a specific policy or procedural recommendation that the presiding officer or Commission adopted.⁶ A substantial contribution includes evidence or argument that supports part of the decision even if the Commission does not adopt a party's position in total.⁷

TURN:

TURN asserts it substantially contributed to D.00-03-021 in three areas. First, TURN cites its contributions to the Commission's analyses of the economic benefits resulting from the merger. We agree with TURN that its recommendations regarding the definition of "long-term" for purposes of calculating the economic benefits resulting from the merger constitute a substantial contribution. TURN's recommendations played a significant role in the Commission's decision to adopt a five-year definition of "long-term", rather than the four-year period proposed by the Applicants. The Commission agreed with TURN that the four-year estimate was unrealistic. (See D.00-03-021, pp. 44-45.) We note that TURN recommended a definition of "long-term" of 10 years, but in no event less than 5.6 years. While the Commission did not adopt TURN's specific definition, we do not find that this reduces the significance of TURN's contribution. TURN's participation on this issue assisted the Commission in arriving at the five-year definition ultimately adopted. On the issue of economic benefits of the merger, TURN also provided testimony that resulted in Applicants adjusting their benefits forecast to increase the amount of cost savings. (See Exhibit 6, p. 6.) Additionally, TURN provided testimony and argument regarding revenue synergies that contributed to our decision to increase the economic benefits forecast by $2.375 million over four years. (D.00 03-021, pp. 34-37.)

The second issue on which TURN claims it made a substantial contribution is the inclusion of residential basic exchange service in the merger surcredit billing base. TURN correctly points out that it was the only party to recommend that residential basic exchange service be included. The Commission adopted TURN's recommendation and relied upon its reasoning. As a result of TURN'S advocacy on this issue, additional customers will receive a share of merger benefits. (See D.00-03-021, pp. 74-75.)

Lastly, TURN asserts that its participation on the CCA issue provided a substantial contribution to the decision. We have reviewed the record and agree with TURN's assertion. While the Commission did not require shareholders to fund the CCA as recommended by TURN, we did adopt many of TURN's recommendations to impose conditions on the CCA in order to safeguard ratepayer interests and make the collaborative consistent with Section 854.

(See D.00-03-021, pp. 58, 63-65, and 71-72.)

GL/LIF:

The contributions of GL/LIF pertain to the CCA. In their Request, GL/LIF list the activities in which they engaged to demonstrate the contributions made to the decision. They participated in negotiations with Applicants, educated and mobilized local community groups to urge Commission approval of the CCA, and conducted a survey of ratepayer preferences to determine if ratepayers preferred refunds or the establishment of the CCA. During hearings GL/LIF participated on the CCA issue through cross-examination and the presentation of witnesses. During the decision-making phase, they provided comments and reply comments. Lastly, they argue that they met and worked with other signatories to the CCA.

Applicants state in their Response that GL/LIF "unquestionably made substantial contributions to the Commission's decision..." Specifically they cite the efforts of GL/LIF in negotiating the CCA and advocating its adoption. We find that GL/LIF made substantial contributions to D.00-03-021. Their participation played an important role in our decision to adopt the CCA, which will result in millions of dollars being invested to promote telecommunications access to underserved communities. The CCA includes a 98% penetration goal for Universal Lifeline Telephone Service, enhanced charitable contributions from Applicants, and renewed commitments on the part of Applicants to diversity in hiring, promotion, and contracting.

PA:

The participation of PA, like GL/LIF, was limited to the issue of the CCA. PA points out that D.00-03-021 adopted the CCA, and that PA is one of the parties advocating its adoption. PA participation included negotiations with Applicants, attendance at community meetings, communication with lawmakers, participation at hearings, and filing of comments.

In their Response, Applicants conclude that PA made substantial contributions to the Commission's decision to approve the merger with adoption of the CCA. We find that PA's participation represents a substantial contribution to the outcome of the proceeding.