compensation to intervenors for substantive contributions that were not specifically adopted in some order or decision. (Rhg. App., p. 4.) interpretation of the above paragraph is wrong and ignores the AT&T’s Court’s discussion of prior Commission decisions in proceedings that ended without a final decision on the merits, discussed below. As we understand the language, the Court’s 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 fees, reasonable expert fees, and other reasonable costs incurred by TURN advocate’s 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 the Court provided a rather extensive review of prior New Cingular Wireless, 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 itself, Allen/Warner the CPUC took the position that there is a discretionary to the requirement of contribution to an or “exception” “order based on vague notions of fairness and equity. [see decision” fn. 26 omitted.] Following the 1992 Amendments [], as illustrated by [], the CPUC began to ground its authority MCI to award intervenor compensation in such cases on a textual reading of the statutory definition of “substantial supported by a policy rationale founded contribution,” expressly on section 1801.3. (New 246 Cal.App. 4th at p. 815, fn. 27.) Cingular Wireless, supra, The Court then drew a parallel between and the instant case: MCI was a case much like this one, where the impact the MCI intervenors had in an aborted merger review proceeding was reflected in a series of procedural victories. In finding that
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
198403889.docx