compensation to intervenors for substantive contributions that were not specifically adopted in some order or decision. (Rhg. App., p. 4.) AT&T’s interpretation of the above paragraph is wrong and ignores the Court’s discussion of prior Commission decisions in proceedings that ended without a final decision on the merits, discussed below. As we understand the Court’s language, the Court was simply stating that section 1802 (i) limits awardable compensation for procedural recommendations or for adoption of a contention only in part to all reasonable advocate’s fees, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable costs incurred by TURN and CforAT in preparing or presenting that contention or recommendation. The Court was not stating that the Commission may not award TURN and CforAT compensation for substantive contributions that were not adopted of affirmed in an order (such as a procedural ruling) or decision. In New Cingular Wireless, the Court provided a rather extensive review of prior Commission decisions awarding intervenor compensation when a proceeding ends without a decision on the merits stating, in pertinent part, as follows: The CPUC has consistently ruled since 1981 that it has discretion to award intervenor compensation in cases that end without a decision on the merits, but its rationale has evolved over time. Prior to 1992, as illustrated by Allen/Warner itself, the CPUC took the position that there is a discretionary “exception” to the requirement of contribution to an “order or decision” based on vague notions of fairness and equity. [see fn. 26 omitted.] Following the 1992 Amendments [], as illustrated by MCI [], the CPUC began to ground its authority to award intervenor compensation in such cases on a textual reading of the statutory definition of “substantial contribution,” supported by a policy rationale founded expressly on section 1801.3. (New Cingular Wireless, supra, 246 Cal.App. 4th at p. 815, fn. 27.) The Court then drew a parallel between MCI and the instant case: MCI was a case much like this one, where the impact the intervenors had in an aborted merger review proceeding was reflected in a series of procedural victories. In finding that
cited to as examples of employing the correct legal rationale for awarding intervenor compensation when a proceeding ends without a decision on the merits. Those prior Commission decisions indicate unequivocally that as long as the Commission grounds its authority in a textual reading of “substantial contribution” (section 1802(i)), the Commission may then exercise its discretion on a case by case basis to decide the extent of the intervenor’s substantial contribution and the amount of the award based upon the policy rationale set forth in section 1801.3 (that the statute be administered in a manner that encourages the effective and efficient participation by all stakeholders). Based on the above, rehearing on this issue is denied. However, we modify to more fully discuss the intervenors’ procedural recommendations that were affirmed in rulings as well as their substantive contributions to the OII proceeding and to D.12-08-025. AT&T Misinterprets The Court Of Appeal’s Reason For Remand In The New Cingular Wireless Decision AT&T argues that “[t]he Commission’s task on remand, on order to comply with the statute, was to identify which of the intervenors’ contentions or recommendations were actually adopted in an actual order or decision, and what costs the intervenors incurred in presenting those particular contentions or recommendations. (Rhg. App., p. 3.) AT&T argues that D.17-04-007 fails to identify what portion of TURN’s $256,000 in total costs for the proceeding were attributable to the preparation and presentation of the procedural recommendations that were adopted by the Commission. “That conflicts with the Court’s holding that section 1802(i) “plainly limit[s] the awardable compensation to . . . ‘reasonable costs in incurred by the customer in preparing or presenting that contention or recommendation’” i.e., the contention or recommendation the Commission adopted.” (Rhg. App., p. 4, citing New Cingular Wireless, supra, 246 Cal.App. 4th at p. 819.) AT&T is wrong. The Court did not remand the orders in New Cingular Wireless due to lack of ample evidentiary support in the record for the compensation awards to TURN and CforAT. As the Court noted: “Based on the CPUC’s detailed factual
Second, neither MCI, nor New Cingular Wireless, nor any of the other prior Commission decisions the Court cites to in footnote 27, support AT&T’s argument that the Commission may award compensation only for the reasonable costs an intervenor incurred in preparing or presenting whatever contentions or recommendations the Commission actually adopted in some order or decision. In almost all of those decisions, the Commission only adopted one procedural recommendation of the intervenors, yet awarded all or nearly all of the requested compensation. In other words, those decisions demonstrate that as long as the Commission grounds its authority in a textual reading of “substantial contribution” (section 1802(i)), the Commission may then exercise its discretion on a case by case basis to decide the extent of the intervenor’s substantial contribution and the amount of the award based upon the policy rationale set forth in section 1801.3. Based on the above, we find that AT&T’s allegations that Allen/Warner and MCI are irrelevant lack merit. Hence, rehearing is denied on these issues. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we modify D.17-04-007 as discussed above and set forth in the Ordering Paragraphs below. Attachment A to today’s decision incorporates the modifications made to D.17-04-007. Rehearing of D.17-04-007, as modified, is denied because no legal error has been demonstrated. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. D.17-04-007 shall be modified as follows: On page 2, second full paragraph, third sentence, after the words “The Commission invited” insert: parties, including intervenors, to participate in the OII, and to file On page 3, first full paragraph, fourth sentence, after the words “But, the Commission did affirm all of its prior rulings” insert: