VI. Greenlining/LIF's Contribution to Resolution of Issues
Greenlining/LIF's request for compensation4 states that the Commission adopted its positions because it proposed that (1) customers should continue to access Internet using basic ("dial up") telecommunications services "without overwhelming the Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (ULTS) fund"; (2) widespread internet use should be facilitated through the ULTS program; and (3) the Commission should increase the discounts for the California Teleconnect Fund (CTF). Greenlining/LIF concluded that because the Commission adopted its proposals, it had made a significant contribution to D.02-10-060.
We have carefully reviewed the record and we are unable to find any support for Greenlining/LIF's assertions that it presented these recommendations, see § 1802(h), or that Greenlining/LIF's work materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of another party see § 1802.5. In fact, Greenlining/LIF's proposals in this proceeding were twofold: (1) to provide a $10 subsidy to ULTS customers so they could purchase dial-up internet services, and (2) to create a blue ribbon panel to conduct further studies of the issues raised by SB 1712. The Commission did not adopt Greenlining/LIF's suggestion to provide a subsidy for dial-up Internet access, and explicitly rejected any such subsidies as imposing too great a burden on the ULTS program and customer rates. The Commission also rejected Greenlining/LIF's suggestion that "the least prudent course for the Commission would be to conclude that advanced technologies are not within the current definition of `essential' and do no more." Contrary to Greenlining/LIF's suggestion, the Commission did not include any type of Internet access in the definition of basic service and instead decided to "keep basic telephone service as affordable as possible," D.02-10-060, mimeo. at p.10. The Commission also did not adopt Greenlining/LIF's suggestion to create a blue ribbon panel.
Greenlining/LIF also claimed that "[t]he Commission adopted Greenlining/LIF's suggestion that a higher CTF discount for CBO's5 would increase their participation in the CTF program. The Commission directed the Telecommunications Division to increase the CTF discount for CBO's to 50%, as Greenlining/LIF suggested." Greenlining/LIF request for compensation at p.6. To evaluate this assertion, we have carefully reviewed Greenlining/LIF's comments and reply comments responding to OII.6 We are unable to locate a single reference to the CTF, much less a suggestion that the Commission increase the discount in the OIR comments or reply comments. Greenlining/LIF's OIR comments and reply comments contained no "presentation" on this issue as is required by § 1802(h).
After receiving the parties' OIR comments, reply comments, and holding the PPHs described above, the Commission staff issued its Broadband Report supporting the CTF proposal, attributing it to presentations by other parties and PPH participants. See Broadband Report at page 22. The Commission subsequently issued for comment a draft decision adopting the Broadband Report. In its reply comments on the draft decision adopting the Broadband Report, Greenlining/LIF addressed for the first time the CTF proposal reflected in the Broadband Report. In the final decision, the Commission summarized Greenlining/LIF's reply comments on the draft decision: "[Greenlining/LIF] recommended that the Commission appoint a blue-ribbon panel of experts in advanced telecommunications technologies and representatives of low-income communities to formulate a long-term plan for implementing SB 1712 including deployment of advanced technologies to universal service customers. These groups also recommended further expansion of the CTF for community based organizations." D.02-10-060 at page 4 - 5. Those reply comments also supported, with one sentence on page 3,7 the Broadband Report's proposed expansion of the CTF. The Commission decision adopted the CTF proposal in the Broadband Report and directed the Telecommunications Division to prepare a resolution modifying the CTF program. Greenlining/LIF's one sentence presentation of belated support for adopting the Broadband Report's recommendation, with no additional substantive elaboration, did not substantially assist the Commission in adopting the CTF modifications.
As the above discussion demonstrates, Greenlining/LIF's assertions that it made a presentation on the adopted CTF modifications, or that Greenlining/LIF materially supplemented another party's presentation, is not supported by the record. Consequently, we conclude that Greenlining/LIF did not make a significant contribution on this issue.
A similar result, but for different reasons, occurs with regard to Greeenlining/LIF's statement that it advocated for increased reliance on CBOs for outreach to low-income families. While Greenlining/LIF did make a vague reference to "non profits,"8 the Commission took no action in this proceeding that increased reliance on CBOs for outreach to low-income families. On page 33 of the Broadband Report cited to by Greenlining/LIF, the Commission described an extant initiative relying on CBOs, where contracts were under review by the Department of General Services with approval expected soon thereafter. Other than to note the existence of this already approved and nearly implemented program, the Commission did not address the topic at all. Greenlining/LIF's advocacy in this proceeding did not substantially contribute to the outcome.
We are, therefore, compelled to conclude that, in all particulars, Greenlining/LIF's request for compensation does not demonstrate that Greenlining/LIF has met the statutory standards for compensation. The request also fails to address or attribute any time to Greenlining/LIF's rejected proposals, i.e, the blue ribbon panel or $10/month subsidy.9 These problems and inconsistencies make it impossible for us to decide the substantial contribution question in Greenlining/LIF's favor.
As discussed above with regards to La Raza's request, the Commission can award compensation where the Commission does not adopt the intervenor's position. Such an award, however, requires that the participation enhance the record in the proceeding or be otherwise useful to the Commission, see D.01-11-047. Here, the Commission did not act on Greenlining/LIF's proposals for a blue ribbon panel and the $10/month subsidy for dial-up internet access. Thus, Greenlining/LIF's proposals were not useful to the Commission, nor did the proposals enhance the record in the proceeding.
In short, Greenlining/LIF has failed to meet its burden of proving that it made a substantial contribution to this proceeding. For that reason, we are constrained by § 1803(a) to decline to award Greenlining/LIF intervenor compensation.
4 Greenlining requested $31,345.06 in compensation for its work in this proceeding, which consisted of filing initial comments (11 pages), reply comments (8 pages), and reply comments on the draft decision (6 pages). 5 Community Based Organization 6 The parties' OIR comments and reply comments were the substantive foundation of this proceeding as we found that evidentiary hearings were not necessary. 7 The first two and a half pages of the reply comments are devoted to the "blue ribbon" panel proposal. The next page and half advocate for increasing the CTF discount to 75% to 80% for CBOs and the final page and a half recommend expanding the definition of CBOs and an outreach campaign. The final decision did not adopt these proposals. 8 "Leveraged technology partnerships between non-profits, various levels of government, and private enterprises can and should be fostered by the Commission in its overarching blueprint for long-term technology deployment for ULTS customers." Greenlining/LIF Reply Comments at 3-4. 9 In its comments on the intervenor compensation draft decision, Greenlining/LIF stated that approximately 15% of its time was devoted to this proposal. We cannot rely on this assertion because it is new factual information the provision of which violates Rule 77.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
