III. La Raza's Contribution to Resolution of Issues

In this case, La Raza proposed that the Commission redefine "Universal Service" to incorporate two-way voice, video and data service using broadband technology. It argued that the cost of broadband, about $20 per month ($10 per month for lifeline customers), was substantially less than the benefits of the service to consumers and society. La Raza also proposed that all California customers should have access to the Internet as a matter of equity and to secure the state's economic future. La Raza filed comments and reply comments on the initial OIR, filed motions, filed comments on the ALJ's draft decision and the Commission's report to the Legislature, and presented a declaration with analysis by an expert witness.

In typical proceedings, an intervenor seeks to establish "substantial contribution" by linking a specific outcome adopted by the Commission to a position the intervenor took in prepared testimony or in a brief. La Raza acknowledges that the Commission did not adopt its positions in this proceeding, but seeks compensation under the theory that the Commission may award compensation in certain circumstances even if the Commission does not adopt the intervenor's position. D.95-08-051 and previous orders have found that the Commission may make such an award where the case is complex, requires uncommon skill and the proceeding is unusually important.

We believe some compensation in this case is warranted even though the Commission did not explicitly adopt La Raza's overall policy recommendations. This proceeding, as La Raza observes, was important because it raised vital issues of equity and economic development. We also note that the Legislature directed us to undertake this proceeding. Although we did not agree with La Raza to expand the definition of universal service to include broadband services, we did explicitly recognize the vital role of information technology in the state's economy and in spreading the benefits of those technologies to all Californians.

The issues in this proceeding were complex in that they involved changing technologies and markets for them, the cost of technology and ratemaking treatment for those costs, legislative intent and jurisdictional issues. In addition, La Raza is correct that it contributed to some procedural issues raised in the course of the proceeding, some of which influenced the development of a complete record, see 1802(h).

Most significantly, La Raza provided a unique and unpopular perspective, which enriched the Commission's deliberations and the proceeding record. As a specific example, nearly half of the text of D.00-10-060 is devoted to responding to La Raza's substantive and procedural issues. Indeed, La Raza was the only party to advocate for the kinds of changes suggested in the statute. Without its participation, the Commission would have had no proposal to change the status quo.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that La Raza made a significant contribution to this proceeding. We grant La Raza 50% of its requested attorney and expert hours, consistent with D.01-11-047.¹