VI. Greenlining/LIF's Contribution to Resolution of Issues

Greenlining/LIF's request for compensation³ 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 the proposals originated with Greenlining/LIF. In fact, Greenlining/LIF's proposals in this proceeding were mainly 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. Greenlining/LIF is correct that a need to protect the ULTS fund is implicit in the Commission's decision to exclude broadband from the package of basic services. However, Greenlining/LIF did not advocate for that protection but, as noted above, proposed creating a new subsidy for dial-up Internet access to be funded by the ULTS fund.

Nor did the Commission agree with Greenlining/LIF's suggestion to create a blue ribbon panel. Although it agreed some of the issues would be the subjects of other proceedings, it did not convene a group of experts to study the matter as repeatedly suggested by Greenlining/LIF.

Greenlining/LIF also claimed that "[t]he Commission adopted Greenlining/LIF's suggestion that a higher CTF discount for CBO's⁴ 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. We are unable to locate a single reference to the CTF, much less a suggestion that the Commission increase the discount in these comments or reply comments.

Greenlining/LIF did address the CTF in its reply comments on the Commission decision on the report. Greenlining's reply comments, however, were filed after the Commission staff issued its report supporting the proposal and attributing it other parties. On August 14, 2002, the Commission staff issued the broadband report, which included a specific conclusion that "enhancement of CTF promotes internet use among low-income households." In that report, the assigned Commissioner also announced his intention to propose to increase the discounts available and expand the services included in the CTF. The genesis of such a proposal was attributed to "Pacific Bell and other parties" as well as Public Participation Hearing speakers. See Report at page 22. Neither the report nor the filings that preceded it, support Greenlining/LIF's assertions that it was the source of these proposals.

Subsequent to releasing the report, the Commission mailed for comment a draft decision adopting the report. Thereafter, on September 23, 2002, Greenlining/LIF filed its reply comments on the Commission's draft decision on the 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. In those reply comments for the first time Greenlining supported, with one sentence on page 3,⁵ the staff report's proposed expansion of the CTF. The Commission decision adopted the CTF proposal in the report and directed the Telecommunications Division to prepare a resolution modifying the CTF program. Thus, Greenlining/LIF's reply comments did nothing more than support the staff report recommendation, with no additional substantive elaboration.

As the above discussion demonstrates, Greenlining/LIF's assertion that it is the source of the adopted CTF modifications is pointedly at odds with the record. Consequently, we cannot rely on this assertion to support the conclusion that Greenlining/LIF made a significant contribution to the record.

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,"⁶ the Commission took no action in this proceeding that increased reliance on CBOs for outreach to low-income families. On the page of the report cited by Greenlining/LIF, page 33, 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 then 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. Therefore, Greenlining/LIF has failed to show that it made a substantial contribution on this topic.

We are, therefore, compelled to conclude that, in the 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 blue ribbon panel or $10/month subsidy proposals. 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.