adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. Second, if the customer’s contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we look at whether the customer’s participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party. The Commission described how it assesses whether the customer meets these standards in D.98-04-059, its decision in its Rulemaking and Investigation of the Commission's Intervenor Compensation Program. The Commission typically reviews the record, composed in part of pleadings of the customer and, in litigated matters, the hearing transcripts, and compares it to the findings, conclusions, and orders in the decision to which the customer asserts he or she contributed. As described in § 1802(j), it is then a matter of judgment as to whether the customer’s presentation substantially assisted the Commission. Finally, the Commission explains in D.98-04-059 how the intervenor compensation program, as structured, meets the intent of the Legislature: When it codified the intervenor compensation program, the Legislature struck a balance between competing goals: to encourage the effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility regulation process while avoiding unproductive or unnecessary participation that duplicates the participation of others. Three tools affect this balance: eligibility, based on financial hardship, and substantial contribution, which, when applied together, ensure that compensated intervention provides value to the ratepayers who fund it. With this guidance in mind, we turn to Rafferty’s claimed contributions to D.17-05-013.
adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. Second, if the customer’s contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we look at whether the customer’s participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party. The Commission described how it assesses whether the customer meets these standards in D.98-04-059, its decision in its Rulemaking and Investigation of the Commission's Intervenor Compensation Program. The Commission typically reviews the record, composed in part of pleadings of the customer and, in litigated matters, the hearing transcripts, and compares it to the findings, conclusions, and orders in the decision to which the customer asserts he or she contributed. As described in § 1802(j), it is then a matter of judgment as to whether the customer’s presentation substantially assisted the Commission. Finally, the Commission explains in D.98-04-059 how the intervenor compensation program, as structured, meets the intent of the Legislature: When it codified the intervenor compensation program, the Legislature struck a balance between competing goals: to encourage the effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility regulation process while avoiding unproductive or unnecessary participation that duplicates the participation of others. Three tools affect this balance: eligibility, based on financial hardship, and substantial contribution, which, when applied together, ensure that compensated intervention provides value to the ratepayers who fund it. With this guidance in mind, we turn to Rafferty’s claimed contributions to D.17-05-013.