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 (section 1802(i)), the “substantial contribution” Commission may then exercise its discretion on a case by case basis to decide the extent of the substantial contribution and the amount of the award based upon the intervenor’s 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 procedural recommendations that were intervenors’ 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 Reason For Appeal’s Remand In The Decision New Cingular Wireless AT&T argues that task on remand, on order to comply with “[t]he Commission’s the statute, was to identify which of the contentions or recommendations intervenors’ 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 $256,000 TURN’s 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 holding that section 1802(i) limit[s] the awardable Court’s “plainly compensation to . . . costs in incurred by the customer in preparing or ‘reasonable i.e., the contention or recommendation presenting that contention or recommendation’” the Commission (Rhg. App., p. 4, citing 246 New Cingular Wireless, supra, adopted.” 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 on the detailed factual noted: “Based CPUC’s
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
198403889.docx