New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Public Utilities Commission (246 Cal. App. 4th 784, 2016)

Opinion

STREETER, J. —

Here we decide whether the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) properly awarded fees and costs to two intervenors, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT), for their work in a complex telecommunications merger review proceeding dismissed by the CPUC as moot for reasons unrelated to anything that happened in the proceeding itself.

A group of entities affiliated with AT&T, Inc. (AT&T), one of the merger proponents, filed a petition for a writ of review seeking reversal of these awards. The petition alleges that neither TURN nor CforAT “substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision” (Pub. Util. Code, § 1802, subd. (i)) and therefore that neither of them made a “substantial contribution” to the proceeding, as that phrase is specifically defined in Public Utilities Code, part I, chapter 9, article 5, section 1801 et seq., Intervenor Fees and Expences (Article 5), the statutory scheme governing intervenor compensation in the CPUC’s proceedings.

We deny the requested writ relief, but for reasons explained below will nonetheless vacate the challenged awards without prejudice to the renewal and redetermination by the CPUC of TURN’S and CforAT’s requests for fees and costs.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Five years ago, AT&T sought to acquire T-Mobile USA, then a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, and merge the operations and infrastructure of T-Mobile USA into itself. The prospect of this combination attracted immediate and intense regulatory scrutiny nationwide.

Beginning in approximately April 2011, when the AT&T/T-Mobile merger proposal was announced, and for the next five months, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the United States Department of lustice, and various state regulatory agencies undertook overlapping investigation and review proceedings to determine whether the merger would have adverse effects on competition and customer service, and if so, whether mitigation measures were warranted as a condition of regulatory approval. In California, the center of the action was the CPUC’s investigatory proceeding in this case, investigation No. 11-06-009 (hereafter Docket No. 111-06-009), which commenced June 9, 2011, pursuant to an order instituting investigation (Oil). Among the participants in Docket No. 111-06-009 were the petitioners here, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, AT&T Mobility Wireless Operations Holdings Inc., Santa Barbara Cellular Systems, Ltd., and AT&T Mobility Wireless Operations Holdings, LLC (collectively, New Cingular), which are all entities owned directly or indirectly by AT&T.

The Oil set an expedited schedule under which any and all comments from interested parties had to be submitted within 60 days. Procedurally, the CPUC sought to carry out and complete the investigation of a complex transaction having national scope within a few months, and in doing so, to build an evidentiary record robust enough for the CPUC’s staff to prepare written comments for filing in the FCC proceedings. The end goal was to enable the CPUC to provide its input on the impact of the proposed merger in California and to take a position on any appropriate mitigation conditions, should the merger be approved by the FCC. Since the FCC proceedings were themselves unfolding on an expedited schedule, with a target for completion by year’s end 2011, maintaining the required schedule in Docket No. 111-06-009, without slippage, was of paramount importance. The CPUC apparently believed it could not accomplish all of this on its own, solely with staff support, because upon issuance of the Oil it immediately invited participation from a group of intervenors, including TURN and CforAT.

TURN appears to have taken a leading role in the proceeding from the beginning, starting with its successful advocacy concerning the need for an intensive review of the proposed transaction before the Oil even issued. At the outset of the proceeding, TURN won some crucial procedural victories that kept things on track, first defeating an effort by AT&T to stop the investigation based on jurisdictional and preemption arguments that the CPUC has no authority to regulate wireless telephone carriers, and then arguing successfully that the Oil proceeding should be categorized as a “procedural rate-setting proceeding,” which had the effect of triggering a number of rules designed to ensure public transparency (among other things, restrictions on ex parte contacts). On TURN’S motion, the administrative law judge (ALJ) took official notice of a complaint filed by the Department of Justice seeking to enjoin the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. TURN also prevailed in numerous scheduling disputes and discovery contests. As a result of these preliminary rulings, TURN and all other parties in Docket No. 111-06-009 were^ able to obtain, subject to a protective order, thousands of pages of confidential data — including a financial model of the proposed merger that was essential for economic analysis of its impacts in California — in time to analyze and file detailed comments within the tight time frames required by the schedule.

The CPUC placed a high priority on obtaining maximum public input during the investigatory process. Thus, “[consistent with the direction set forth in the Oil, the assigned Commissioner and ALJ held workshops and public participation hearings throughout California during the month of July [2011], to gather information on specific issues related to the proposed merger and to hear public comment. Each workshop was facilitated by the assigned ALJ, with the assigned Commissioner and other Commissioners in attendance. Participants at each workshop included independent experts, representatives of the respondents and other market participants, and representatives of other interested groups, including unions, consumer advocates, and others. Each workshop consisted of panel presentations, and provided opportunities for parties to ask questions of panel members. Each workshop also included time during which members of the public could comment.” (Decision Dismissing Investigation into Acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T and New Cingular Wireless (Aug. 23, 2012) Cal.P.U.C. Dec. No. 12-08-025 [2012 Cal.P.U.C. Lexis 365, p. *8] (hereafter Final Decision and Order).)

A key piece of the CPUC’s record-building process in Docket No. 111-06-009 was economic analysis, which is often at the core of antitrust litigation, and is something that typically requires examination of voluminous financial data. In this area, the bulk of the work was done by TURN’S expert economist, Dr. Trevor Roycroft, who filed a detailed affidavit setting forth his opinions in August 2011. Before filing his affidavit, Dr. Roycroft appeared and presented his views at a public workshop on July 22, 2011. At all three workshops, speakers from TURN presented their views, .arguing that the proposed merger would have serious anticompetitive effects in California. Consistent with the position it took from the beginning of the proceeding in favor of public transparency, TURN later sought to persuade the ALJ that the transcripts of these workshops should be posted and made available publicly. The ALJ so ordered.

Before the CPUC had occasion to prepare comments for submission to the FCC, AT&T and Deutsche Telekom unexpectedly announced the withdrawal of their proposed merger transaction (see FCC, Order No. DA 11-1955 (Nov. 29, 2011) p. 2, at [as of Apr. 19, 2016].), and in November 2011 moved to dismiss Docket No. 111-06-009 on grounds of mootness. The CPUC granted that motion on August 23, 2012 (the Final Decision and Order). The Final Decision and Order was more than a naked, unexplained dismissal. It addressed and decided a number of collateral matters, including whether to adopt all of the interim rulings that had issued in the course of the proceeding. In section 5, entitled “Affirmation of All Rulings,” the CPUC explained: “All Rulings by the assigned ALJ and assigned Commissioner in the course of this proceeding, including rulings made by electronic mail, are affirmed. Rulings affirmed through this decision include the July 5, 2011, ruling requiring that AT&T provide and pay for support services for all workshops and public participation hearings held in this proceeding. In addition, this decision affirms various electronic mail rulings modifying the proceedings schedule, granting party status to [specified intervenors], and addressing other procedural issues.” (Final Dec. & Order, supra, 2012 Cal.P.U.C. Lexis 365 at pp. *16-* 17.)

The Final Decision and Order also addressed the issue of intervener compensation, explaining as follows: “The former merger proponents moved to dismiss this proceeding after approximately six months of concentrated effort to evaluate the proposed transaction, undertaken in good faith by Commission staff and parties participating in this proceeding. Given the advanced stage of the proceeding at the time the respondents abandoned the proposed transaction and requested dismissal, it is reasonable for the Commission to acknowledge the work done by parties to this proceeding, and to explicitly state that requests for intervenor compensation are appropriate.” (Final Dec. & Order, supra, 2012 Cal.RU.C. LEXIS 365 at pp. *14-* 15.) TURN and CforAT then moved for awards of intervenor compensation, and in subsequent orders — each of which, in turn, was based on detailed findings explaining the “substantial contributions” TURN and CforAT made to specific rulings prior to dismissal — the CPUC issued the compensation awards that are now at issue (respectively, the TURN Award and the CforAT Award). These orders were finalized following denial of a motion for rehearing on December 18, 2014 (the Rehearing Decision).

New Cingular now petitions for review in this court, urging us to reverse the Final Decision and Order insofar as it finds TURN and CforAT to be eligible for intervener compensation, and to reverse outright the three orders that followed the eligibility finding — the TURN Award, the CforAT Award, and the Rehearing Decision.

II. DISCUSSION

Section 1803 provides, in essence, that the CPUC shall award reasonable advocate’s fees, expert witness fees, and costs of preparing for and participating in a proceeding, to any customer who makes a “substantial contribution to the adoption, in whole or in part, of the commission’s order or decision,” and for whom such participation or intervention imposes a “significant financial hardship.” (§ 1803, subds. (a) & (b).) New Cingular challenges the compensation awards to TURN and CforAT on the ground that neither of them could have made a “substantial contribution” to any “decision or order” of the CPUC because AT&T withdrew its proposed merger with T-Mobile for reasons unrelated to anything these intervenors did or argued in Docket No. I11-06-009. The implicit premise of this contention, at least as presented in New Cingular’s briefs — and as acknowledged explicitly by New Cingular’s counsel at oral argument — is that, to qualify as a “substantial contribution,” an intervenor’s advocacy must contribute to an “order or decision” on the merits.

New Cingular’s interpretation of Article 5 is based on statutory provisions contemplating that requests for compensation awards may be made only after issuance of the “final order or decision by the commission in the hearing or proceedings” and that, upon the making of any such request, “the commission shall issue a decision that determines whether or not the customer has made a substantial contribution to the final order or decision in the hearing or proceeding.” (§ 1804, subds. (c) & (e).) While this reading of Article 5 has some surface plausibility, given the references to a “final order or decision,” the record in this case illustrates that the CPUC’s reading of section 1803, subdivision (a) is equally plausible, since its final order in Docket No. 111-06-009 expressly adopts all interim procedural rulings made prior to dismissal. Thus, we are presented with an ambiguity.

“ ‘As in any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose.’ [Citation.] The rules for performing this task are well established. We begin by examining the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. [Citation.] We do not, however, consider the statutory language in isolation; rather, we look to the entire substance of the statutes in order to determine their scope and purposes. [Citation.] That is, we construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the statutes’ nature and obvious purposes. [Citation.] We must harmonize the various parts of the enactments by considering them in the context of the statutory framework as a whole.” (People v. Cole (2006) 38 Cal.4th 964, 974-975 [44 Cal.Rptr.3d 261, 135 P.3d 669]. To discern the legislative intent here, we begin our analysis with an examination of the statutory language, setting out the relevant text of Article 5, placed within its overall context and structure.

A. The Text and Structure of Article 5

Article 5, Intervenor’s Fees and Expenses, opens with a broad statement of purpose: “The purpose of this article is to provide compensation for reasonable advocate’s fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs to public utility customers of participation or intervention in any proceeding of the commission.” (§ 1801.) There follows a more specific statement of legislative intent. “It is the intent of the Legislature that: [¶] . . . [¶] (b) The provisions of this article shall be administered in a manner that encourages the effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility regulation process. [¶] . . . [¶] (d) Intervenors be compensated for making a substantial contribution to proceedings of the commission, as determined by the commission in its orders and decisions. . . .” (§ 1801.3, italics added.) Next, there is a series of definitions, including the following: “(f) ‘Proceeding’ means an application, complaint, or investigation, ralemaking, alternative dispute resolution procedures in lieu of formal proceedings as may be sponsored or endorsed by the commission, or other formal proceeding before the commission. [¶] . . . [¶] (i) ‘Substantial contribution’ means that, in the judgment of the commission, the customer’s presentation has substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision because the order or decision has adopted in whole or in part one or more factual contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations presented by the customer. . . .” (§ 1802, italics added.)

These definitional sections are followed by a series of clauses addressing eligibility for compensation. “Participation by a customer that materially supplements, complements, or contributes to the presentation of another party, including the commission staff, may be fully eligible for compensation if the participation makes a substantial contribution to a commission order or decision, consistent with Section 1801.3.” (§ 1802.5, italics added.) The core eligibility criteria — and the focal point of the dispute in this case — are twofold. “The commission shall award reasonable advocate’s fees, reasonable expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of preparation for and participation in a hearing or proceeding to any customer who . . . satisfies both of the following requirements: [¶] (a) The customer’s presentation makes a substantial contribution to the adoption, in whole or in part, of the commission’s order or decision. [¶] (b) Participation or intervention without an award of fees or costs imposes a significant financial hardship.” (§ 1803, italics added.)

Finally, Article 5 concludes with a series of clauses that set out conditions to eligibility, mostly procedural in nature, including the following: “(c) Following issuance of a final order or decision by the commission in the hearing or proceeding, a customer who has been found ... to be eligible for an award of compensation may file within 60 days a request for an award. The request shall include at a minimum a detailed description of services and expenditures and a description of the customer’s substantial contribution to the hearing or proceeding. ... [¶] ... [¶] (e) Within 75 days after the filing of a request for compensation pursuant to subdivision (c), ... the commission shall issue a decision that determines whether or not the customer has made a substantial contribution to the final order or decision in the hearing or proceeding.” (§ 1804, subds. (c) & (e), italics added.)

On its face, the above language yields no definitive answer to the statutory construction question presented here. That question turns on the meaning of the phrase “order or decision,” which appears in sections 1802, subdivision (i), 1802.5, 1803, subdivision (a) and 1804, subdivisions (c) and (e). The context surrounding the use of “order or decision” in each of these clauses sheds no particular light on the meaning of the phrase. Semantically, the words “order or decision” could be given any number of permissible interpretations, all of which at some level call for an assessment of how “substantial” an intervenor’s contribution must be to the “order or decision” in question if it is to trigger compensation eligibility. Rather than look at this interpretive issue in binary terms as a matter of winning or losing in the final order terminating a proceeding, the CPUC appears to view it as a matter of context and degree, to be evaluated in its considered discretion against the backdrop of the proceeding as a whole. As explained in more detail below we conclude that is a reasonable interpretation of the key statutory provisions (§§ 1802, subd. (i), 1803, subd. (a), 1804, subds. (c) & (e)), when they are read together, giving meaning to each one, with the Legislature’s expressly stated intent in mind (see § 1801.3).

New Cingular’s position runs contrary to the statutory language contemplating that even a “procedural recommendation []” (§ 1802, subd. (i)) if adopted by the CPUC in a “final order or decision” (§ 1804, subd. (c)) will justify an award of compensation. Here, section 5 of the Final Decision and Order affirms all interim decisions of the ALJ and assigned Commissioner. Some of the procedural positions taken by TURN are reflected in formal interim rulings, and some others, although not memorialized in any written order, were effectively followed. What is important, though, is not the form in which positions taken by TURN were adopted, but that the CPUC decided to adopt some position TURN advocated. By proceeding through discovery to the brink of preparing comments on the merits, the CPUC implicitly decided to reject the argument that it was powerless to proceed; and because it treated the proceeding, procedurally, as a rate-setting matter, it implicitly decided to follow TURN’S classification recommendation. These were not trivial procedural matters in the overall context of the proceeding. For its part, CforAT apparently joined in many of the positions advocated by TURN, which presumably ensured that the proceedings included a uniquely valuable point of view from the standpoint of consumers with disabilities. Although the findings supporting CforAT’s contributions suggest that its procedural contributions were, by comparison to TURN, more modest, so was the amount of its award. Thus, as we read the record here, the CPUC’s position appears to be more consistent with the statutory language than the position proffered by New Cingular.

B. The Statutory History

For confirmation of the legislative intent, we may look to the pertinent statutory history and the wider circumstances of Article 5’s enactment. (See Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387 [241 Cal.Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d 1323] [“Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent.”].) In this case, that history is complex and multilayered, as will become apparent, but after taking stock of everything, we conclude that the CPUC’s reading of the statutory text aligns best with the legislative intent.

1. The Origins of Article 5

The model for Article 5 was a set of regulations adopted by the CPUC in 1980 pursuant to a federal statute, the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 United States Code section 2601 et seq. Section 122 of PURPA allows intervenors in electric utility regulatory proceedings to bring an action for reimbursement of their participation costs in state court for having “substantially contributed” to those proceedings. (16 U.S.C. § 2632(a)(1); see 16 U.S.C. § 2632(a)(2).) But resort to state court is not required under PURPA if the state regulatory authority has a “reasonable procedure” for awarding compensation on the same basis. (16 U.S.C. § 2632(a)(2).) To establish such a procedure, on June 27, 1980, the CPUC promulgated regulations permitting intervenors to request compensation in regulatory proceedings contemplated by PURPA. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, art. 18.5, former §§ 76.01-76.11 (rules 76.01-76.11) & history foil. § 76.01, p. 22.2 (hereafter PURPA Regulations).) Under rule 76.06 of the PURPA Regulations, the basic test for entitlement to an award, a test which in turn comes from section 122, subdivision (a) of PURPA (16 U.S.C. § 2632(a)), authorized awards of compensation to any participating “consumer” in a covered electrical utility proceeding who “substantially contributed to the adoption, in whole or in part, in a Commission order or decision, of a PURPA position advocated by such consumer related to a PURPA standard.” (PURPA Regs., rule 76.06.)

From the beginning, the CPUC took the view that because it could not anticipate the procedural nuances of every situation that might arise in the application of the “substantial contribution” test, it would have to flesh out the meaning of that concept over time, using its discretion. In its order adopting the PURPA Regulations, the CPUC noted that, since Congress intended the term “substantially contributed” to be broadly construed under PURPA (Utah State Coalition of Senior Citizens v. Utah Power & Light Co. (Utah 1989) 776 P.2d 632, 638; H.R.Rep. No. 95-1750, 2d Sess. (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 7797, 7817), it intended to take a similarly expansive approach in implementing the PURPA Regulations: “There are many questions about the terms used in Section 122(a) which require the exercise of judgment by the commission. We adopt rules [today] which provide guidance to this exercise of discretion but do not rely on precise formulae to resolve all concerns. [¶] The phrase ‘position advocated by such consumer’ is an example of language in the section which require[s] flexibility in interpretation. Some would construe this to mean the specific end result in a decision advocated by the consumer. Others would construe this to mean a factual or legal contention upon which a recommendation is based. [¶] Similar questions arise regarding the nature of a ‘substantial contribution’. Decision-making is a process. Substantial contributions are made in many ways and at many times in the process. A record is more than a dry tabulation of facts leading to a clear decision. [¶] Persuasively raising a new issue at a prehearing conference!, for example,] can change the nature of a proceeding [. . . , just as] [i]ntense cross-examination of a single key witness can contribute more than any entire affirmative presentation.” (Order Establishing Rules to Compensate Qualified Electric Consumers for Their Participation in Electric Utility Rate Proceedings (1980) 4 Cal.P.U.C.2d 3, 12-13, italics added (hereafter Order Establishing PURPA Regulations).)

2. Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. CPUC

Outside of the context of electric utilities regulation proceedings covered by the PURPA Regulations, the CPUC initially viewed its authority to award interveners compensation for participating in its proceedings as quite limited. In Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 891 [160 Cal.Rptr. 124, 603 P.2d 41] (Consumers Lobby), the California Supreme Court adopted that view as well, at the CPUC’s urging. In Consumers Lobby, two consumer advocates sought compensation for their participation in CPUC proceedings. The first of these parties, Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies (CLAM), filed a reparations complaint with the CPUC alleging that Pacific Telephone and Telegraph (Pacific) was failing to collect equipment disconnection charges from commercial customers. Following a settlement in which Pacific agreed to pay $400,000 into a CPUC-approved fund for public benefit, CLAM sought reimbursement for the time and expenses it spent pursuing the matter. (Id. at pp. 897-898.) In a separate proceeding, the second consumer advocate group, TURN, requested an award of fees and costs on the ground that its advocacy in a multiparty rate-setting proceeding led Pacific to adopt significant reforms, including the cessation of certain “ ‘wiretapping/monitoring’ ” activities that only TURN had focused on in the case. (Id. at p. 898.) The CPUC denied both compensation claims, taking the position in each case that it had no authority to award fees and costs. (Id. at p. 897.)

In consolidated writ proceedings, the Supreme Court reversed in part. (Consumers Lobby, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 915-916.) Drawing a distinction between quasi-judicial proceedings, such as the complaint proceedings in which CLAM had been involved, and quasi-legislative proceedings, such as the rate-setting proceedings in which TURN had been involved, the court ruled that the CPUC had authority to award compensation to CLAM, but not to TURN. (Id. at p. 913.) In quasi-adjudicatory proceedings, the court explained, the CPUC has equitable powers analogous to those of a judicial tribunal, and thus a fee award was justified under the “common fund” doctrine where a litigant confers a significant benefit on others. (Id. at pp. 905-908.) But with respect to TURN, the “[cjonsiderations . . . militat[ing] in favor of recognizing equitable jurisdiction to award attorney fees in reparation cases ... do not apply . . . .” (Id. at p. 909.) Echoing concerns that the CPUC itself raised, the court held that because of the complexity of the issues in rate-setting cases, the task of evaluating and separately valuing the contributions of the many parties involved was impracticable. (Id. at pp. 909-910.) The petitioners attempted to argue that section 701, a broad and expansive grant of CPUC regulatory authority, may be read to confer blanket authority to award intervenor compensation, but the court was unpersuaded. (25 Cal.3d at pp. 910-911.) “The decision to include such ‘public participation costs’ in rate-making proceedings is . . . appropriately within the province of the Legislature,” the court said. (Id. at pp. 911-912.)

3. The OI1100 Regulations, Southern California Gas, and the Enactment of Article 5

Following the decision in Consumers Lobby, the CPUC shifted course and began to take a broader view of its authority to grant intervenor compensation in ratemaking proceedings. In May 1983, it promulgated a new set of regulations, providing for the award of public participation costs to eligible interveners in virtually all formal CPUC proceedings, including rate-setting proceedings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit 20, art. 18.6, former §§ 76.21-76.32 (rules 76.21-76.32) & history foil. § 76.21 (the Oil 100 Regulations).) In a reversal of the position it took in Consumers Lobby — where it argued that it did not have authority to award inter-venor compensation under section 701 (Consumers Lobby, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 897, 906) — the CPUC cited section 1701, the basic grant of statutory authority allowing the CPUC to make rules of practice and procedure in proceedings before it, as the statutory authority for these rules. Adopting a variation on the PURPA-derived test that would later appear in Article 5, the PURPA and 011 100 Regulations allowed participants in covered proceedings to claim reimbursement for fees and costs upon a showing of “significant financial hardship” where a “substantial contribution” to the proceedings was made. (PURPA Regs., rule 76.05; 011 100 Regulations, rule 76.26.)

In the 011 100 Regulations, the CPUC formally codified the idea— announced in 1980 in its Order Establishing PURPA Regulations — that it would use its discretionary judgment to establish the contours of what constitutes a “substantial contribution,” which it defined as “that contribution which, in the judgment of the Commission, greatly assists the Commission to promote a public purpose in a matter relating to an issue by the adoption, at least in part, of the participant’s position. A showing of substantial contribution shall include, but need not be limited to, a demonstration that the Commission’s order or decision has adopted factual contention(s), legal contention(s), and/or specific recommendation(s) presented by the participant.” (Oil 100 Regs., rule 76.26, italics added.)

The 011 100 Regulations drew an immediate challenge from a group of utilities in Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 64 [211 Cal.Rptr. 99, 695 P.2d 186] (Southern California Gas) on the ground that the CPUC’s assertion of regulatory authority to provide for intervenor compensation was directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Consumers Lobby. But while Southern California Gas was pending in the Supreme Court, the Legislature enacted Article 5, passing it in the form of Senate Bill No. 4 (1981-1982 Reg. Sess.), which was signed by Governor Deukmejian on July 5, 1984. (Stats. 1984, ch. 297, § 2, pp. 1526-1529.) Borrowing definitional language drawn from rule 76.26 of the 011 100 Regulations— including use of the phrase “in the judgment of the Commission” — Article 5 defined “substantial contribution” to mean “the customer’s presentation has substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision because the order or decision has adopted in whole or in part one or more factual contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations presented by the customer.” (§ 1802, former subd. (g), as added by Stats. 1984, ch. 297, § 2, pp. 1526, 1527, subsequently amended by Stats. 1992, ch. 942, § 3, p. 4486 [redesignating § 1802, former subd. (g) as former subd. (h)], Stats. 2003, ch. 300, § 2, p. 2569 [redesignating § 1802, former subd. (h) as subd. (i)].)

Although the open-ended framing of the “substantial contribution” definition in rule 76.26 (a “showing of substantial contribution shall include, but need not be limited to . . .”) (Oil 100 Regs., rule 76.26) was in some respects more expansive than the definitional language ultimately adopted by statute in Article 5, there is no indication in the legislative history that the definition of “substantial contribution” was intended to be different, in substance, from that used in rule 76.26. Indeed, in other respects the definitional language adopted by statute was slightly broader than that used in rule 76.26. Nothing in the legislative history shows any particular focus on these textual nuances or any intent to narrow the CPUC’s discretionary power to make findings of “substantial contribution.” And one thing is abundantly clear: The main purpose of Article 5, stated over and over in the legislative history— indicating that the Legislature acted in direct response to Southern California Gas — was to “confirm” the statutory authority for the CPUC’s then existing practice of awarding intervenor compensation under the 011 100 Regulations, retrospectively, and to codify that practice by statute, going forward. In light of newly enacted Article 5, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ proceedings in Southern California Gas as moot. (Southern California Gas, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 67.) The court’s brief opinion resolving the case explained that “even if the Legislature cannot ‘confirm’ that such authority always existed, despite contrary judicial precedent, it may furnish the missing authority nunc pro tunc. SB 4 appears to have that effect.” (Ibid.)

4. The 1992 Amendments

Responding to a report of the California Auditor General entitled The California Public Utilities Commission Can Improve Aspects of its Program to Compensate Intervenors (1992) (the State Auditor’s Report), the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1975 (1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) in August 1992 (hereafter Assembly Bill 1975), substantially updating Article 5 with a set of amendments (the 1992 Amendments). Rather than promote broad public participation in CPUC proceedings, the State Auditor found that Article 5 had actually created a disincentive for many groups who might have wanted to participate in CPUC proceedings, but were wary of doing so because of the uncertainty surrounding whether they would be paid. (State Auditor’s Rep., p. 13.) Thus, the focus of Assembly Bill 1975 was to revise Article 5 so that, implementing it going forward, the CPUC could achieve the Legislature’s original objective of encouraging broad public input in CPUC proceedings by creating stronger incentives for intervenors to participate.

Assembly Bill 1975 was sponsored by the Chair of the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce, Assemblywoman Gwen Moore. (Assem. Bill 1975, as introduced Mar. 8, 1991.) In remarks in committee hearings and when Assembly Bill 1975 came before the Assembly for final vote, Assemblywoman Moore argued that it was necessary to broaden the circumstances in which compensation would be paid in order “to assure that effective intervenor participation continues as the [C]PUC moves toward more informal proceedings, with less emphasis on adversarial process with formal hearings, decisions and orders.” (Statement of Assemblywoman Moore on Assem. Bill 1975 on Assem. Floor (Aug. 26, 1992).) Moore’s bill passed in the Assembly and Senate and was signed by Governor Wilson on September 26, 1992. (Stats. 1992, ch. 942, p. 4485.) Assembly Bill 1975 made two notable changes to Article 5. It revised and expanded the defined term “proceeding” in section 1802, subdivision (f), which marks out the range of procedural settings in which Article 5 applies, extending its coverage from only rate-related proceedings to a broad array of proceedings, both formal and informal. Assembly Bill 1975 also added a very detailed statement of legislative intent. Section 1801.3, among other things, directs the CPUC to implement Article 5 “in a manner that encourages the effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility regulation process.” (§ 1801.3, subd. (b).)

The 1992 Amendments, especially when taken together with the broader history of Article 5, appear to be inconsistent with New Cingular’s core position in this case, resting, as it does, on the premise that there can be no “substantial contribution” to an “order or decision” of the CPUC without a merits determination. The heart of New Cingular’s argument, drawn from the statutory structure, is that Article 5 unfolds in a logical progression, becoming increasingly specific, from generalized statements of purpose in section 1801.3, to more specific language in section 1802, subdivision (i), to even more specific language in section 1804, subdivisions (c) and (e), where the references to “final order or decision” appear (§ 1804, subd. (c), italics added). But that mode of interpretation begs the ultimate question here, since it tells us little about whether an “order or decision” must be on the merits. It also assumes the Legislature intended Article 5 to be a complete expression of every circumstance in which intervenor compensation could be awarded, leaving for the CPUC only a narrow ministerial role in applying the statutory language. The legislative history suggests otherwise, showing that, from the beginning, when Article 5 was enacted in 1984, the Legislature contemplated a significant role for the CPUC in defining the scope and meaning of the intervenor compensation rules, as applied. The enactment of section 1801.3, subdivision (b) as part of the 1992 Amendments serves to confirm this legislative expectation.

C. Judicial Review of the CPUC’s Interpretation of Article 5

We now turn to the scope of our own review of the agency decisions at issue in this writ proceeding, focusing particularly on how much deference we should give to the CPUC’s interpretation of its power to award intervenor compensation, as conferred upon it by Article 5. Having satisfied ourselves that the TURN Award and the CforAT Award are based on a reasonable construction of Article 5, the CPUC contends our task is complete. According to the CPUC, the applicable standard of review is so narrow that we should simply defer to its decisionmaking, without further inquiry, denying the writ and leaving these awards undisturbed. Considerable deference is warranted, we agree, but in our view, the applicable standard of review calls for a more searching inquiry than the CPUC would have us apply, one that ultimately leads us to reject the CPUC’s stated reasons for issuing the awards at issue here, while deferring to its overall conclusion that TURN and CforAT are eligible for compensation.

1. The Applicable Standard of Review

“[T]he [C]PUC is not an ordinary administrative agency, but a constitutional body with broad legislative and judicial powers.” (Wise v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 287, 300 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 479].) On judicial review, the CPUC’s decisions historically have been generally presumed valid, not to be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion or unreasonable interpretation of the relevant statute, particularly on matters of procedure. (See Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 406, 410-411 [67 Cal.Rptr. 97, 438 P.2d 801] (Greyhound); Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1096-1097 [102 Cal.Rptr.2d 684].) “[W]hen no constitutional issue is presented, a [C]PUC decision has the same standing as a judgment of the superior court: it is presumed correct, and any party challenging the decision has the burden of proving that it suffers from prejudicial error.” (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 812, 838 [188 Cal.Rptr.3d 374]; see generally City and County of San Francisco v. Public Utilities Com. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 523, 530 [217 Cal.Rptr. 43, 703 P.2d 381]; Southern California Edison Co. v. Public Utilities Com. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 172, 185 [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 120].) “Indeed, our Supreme Court has repeatedly called the presumption in favor of the Commission’s decision a ‘strong’ one. (Greyhound[, supra, at p. 410] [‘There is a strong presumption [in favor] of [the] validity of the commission’s decisions . . . .’]; Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Public Util. Com. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 634, 647 [44 Cal.Rptr. 1, 401 P.2d 353] [‘strong presumption of the correctness of the findings ... of the commission, which may choose its own criteria or method of arriving at its decision’].)” (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, at p. 838.)

But the call for deference to agency decisionmaking is not uniformly compelling in all circumstances. The final word on questions of statutory interpretation always rests with the judiciary. (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 7, 11 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 960 P.2d 1031] (Yamaha).) The rationale for deference is strongest when the challenged action by the agency results from a rulemaking decision within the authority delegated to the agency (id. at pp. 11-12), where the agency interprets one of its own regulations (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 840; Utility Consumers’ Action Network v. Public Utilities Com. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 688, 697-698 [114 Cal.Rptr.3d 475]), or where the agency engages in factfinding based on conflicting evidence (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, at pp. 838-839). One basis for challenging a CPUC decision is that the CPUC acted “without, or in excess of, its powers or jurisdiction.” (§§ 1757, subd. (a)(1), 1757.1, subd. (a)(3).) Where the statute subject to interpretation is one that defines the very scope of the CPUC’s jurisdiction, Greyhound deference is not appropriate. (San Pablo Bay Pipeline Co., LLC v. Public Utilities Com. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 295, 310 [196 Cal.Rptr.3d 609]; PG&E Corp. v. Public Utilities Com. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1194 [13 Cal.Rptr.3d 630].) And the CPUC may not exercise its jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with other express provisions of the Public Utilities Code. (PG&E Corp. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1198-1199; see Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 299-300 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 20 P.3d 533].)

Citing Greyhound and its progeny, the CPUC urges us to recognize the “ ‘strong presumption’ ” that Greyhound sets up in its favor. Under the Greyhound test, the CPUC argues, “the [Commission's interpretation of the Public Utilities Code should not be disturbed unless it fails to bear a reasonable relation to statutory purposes and language.” (Greyhound, supra, 68 Cal.2d at pp. 410-411.) New Cingular, on the other hand, takes the position that the CPUC has acted in excess of its authority and argues that we have an independent obligation to construe the statutory language under Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at page 11. We conclude New Cingular has the better of the argument on this point. Because we are reviewing the CPUC’s interpretation of a statute that defines the reach of its power to enter the awards under review, Yamaha, not Greyhound, governs the applicable standard of review. It is not enough for the CPUC simply to demonstrate that its proffered interpretation bears a reasonable relation to the language and purposes of Article 5 under Greyhound. Since we are dealing with a set of “explicit, limited fee rules” (Southern California Gas, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 68) enacted as part of a detailed statutory scheme defining the CPUC’s jurisdiction in this area, applying the Greyhound test here would effectively swallow the statutory scheme in whole, rendering its limitations subordinate to the CPUC’s interpretation of the statute. New Cingular is therefore correct that Yamaha supplies the appropriate lens through which to evaluate this case.

2. The Yamaha Framework

“Although balancing the necessary respect for an agency’s knowledge, expertise, and constitutional office with the courts’ role as interpreter of laws can be a delicate matter, familiar principles guide us.” (Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 255 [163 L.Ed.2d 748, 126 S.Ct. 904].) Under the Yamaha framework of analysis, “ ‘The standard for judicial review of agency interpretation of law is the independent judgment of the court, giving deference to the determination of the agency appropriate to the circumstances of the agency action.’ ” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 8.) Applying the directives of Yamaha is a “nuanced” matter, calling upon us to evaluate the “contextual merit of [the agency’s] interpretation, together with the rules of statutory construction.” (California School Bds. Assn. v. State Bd. of Education (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1314, 1315 [113 Cal.Rptr.3d 550].)

Conceptually, the Yamaha framework rests on “two classes of [administrative] rules — quasi-legislative and interpretive.” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 10.) “[B]ecause of their differing legal sources,” the rules in these two categories “command significantly different degrees of deference by the courts.” (Ibid.) “One kind — quasi-legislative rules — represents an authentic form of substantive lawmaking: Within its jurisdiction, the agency has been delegated the Legislature’s lawmaking power. [Citations.] Because agencies granted such substantive rulemaking power are truly ‘making law,’ their quasi-legislative rules have the dignity of statutes. When a court assesses the validity of such rules, the scope of its review is narrow. If satisfied that the rule in question lay within the lawmaking authority delegated by the Legislature, and that it is reasonably necessary to implement the purpose of the statute, judicial review is at an end.” (Id. at pp. 10-11.)

At issue in Yamaha was a summary legal opinion, known as an “annotation,” prepared by the legal staff of the Board of Equalization (Board). In practice before the Board, annotations are nothing but brief written statements — often only a sentence or two — stating the tax consequences of specific hypothetical business transactions. The practice of the Board was to provide annotations to taxpayers in response to requests for legal opinions by the Board, by its field auditors, or by taxpayers. (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 4-5.) In a taxpayer’s challenge to an assessment by the Board, the Court of Appeal upheld the assessment, giving dispositive weight to an annotation that interpreted section 6009.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (19 Cal.4th at pp. 5-6 & fn. 2.) The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further consideration on the ground that the Court of Appeal had given too much weight to the annotation and had failed to apply its independent interpretation of the statute. (Id. at p. 15.)

The specific legal issue presented in Yamaha concerned the applicable standard of review for “interpretive” agency decisionmaking. “Unlike quasi-legislative rules, an agency’s interpretation does not implicate the exercise of a delegated lawmaking power; instead, it represents the agency’s view of the statute’s legal meaning and effect, questions lying within the constitutional domain of the courts. But because the agency will often be interpreting a statute within its administrative jurisdiction, it may possess special familiarity with satellite legal and regulatory issues. It is this ‘expertise,’ expressed as an interpretation . . . , that is the source of the presumptive value of the agency’s views. An important corollary of agency interpretations, however, is their diminished power to bind. Because an interpretation is an agency’s legal opinion, however ‘expert,’ rather than the exercise of a delegated legislative power to make law, it commands a commensurably lesser degree of judicial deference.” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 11.)

On a question of interpretation, “ ‘the opinion of an administrative agency as to a statute’s meaning may be helpful even if it is “not binding or necessarily even authoritative.” ’ ” (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-852.) “Courts must, in short, independently judge the text of the statute, taking into account and respecting the agency’s interpretation of its meaning, of course, whether embodied in a formal rule or less formal representation. Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency’s interpretation is one among several tools available to the court. Depending on the context, it may be helpful, enlightening, even convincing. It may sometimes be of little worth.” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 7-8.) Thus, courts may give weight to agency interpretations of statutes, by degrees, ranging from respectful but minimal consideration, to great weight. “Whether judicial deference to an agency’s interpretation is appropriate and, if so, its extent — the ‘weight’ it should be given — is thus fundamentally situational. A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command.” (Id. at p. 12.) Applying this “situational” test (id. at p. 12, italics omitted), the Yamaha court held that the Board’s annotations were entitled to “ ‘some consideration,’ ” but not great weight (id. at p. 15).

3. Yamaha as Clarified by Ramirez

Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 785 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 978 P.2d 2] (Ramirez), added a key refinement to the Yamaha framework. Concurring in Yamaha, Justice Mosk explained, “There is an important qualification to the independent judgment/great weight standard . . . when a court finds that the Legislature has delegated the task of interpreting or elaborating on a statute to an administrative agency. A court may find that the Legislature has intended to delegate this interpretive or gap-filling power when it employs open-ended statutory language that an agency is authorized to apply or ‘when an issue of interpretation is heavily freighted with policy choices which the agency is empowered to make.’ ” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 17 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.), original italics.) Highlighting language from a footnote in Justice Brown’s opinion for the majority in Yamaha, Justice Mosk emphasized that administrative decisionmaking does not always fall “ ‘neatly into one category or the other.’ ” (Id. at p. 18 (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.); see id. at p. 6, fn. 3.)

Barely a year after Yamaha was decided, the California Supreme Court unanimously adopted Justice Moslc’s clarifying qualification, explaining that because the Yamaha framework is a “continuum,” some agency decisions will be hybrid in nature, having “both quasi-legislative and interpretive characteristics, as when an administrative agency exercises a legislatively delegated power to interpret key statutory terms” (Ramirez, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 799, italics added), allowing it to “ ‘fill up the details’ of a statutory scheme” (ibid.). Without resolving what standard of review applies to agency decisions of this kind, Ramirez analyzed the decision under review there — a wage order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission, defining a statutory term in section 1171 of the Labor Code — as a hybrid decision, testing it under the standards applicable to both quasi-legislative and interpretive decisions. (20 Cal.4th at pp. 799-800.) The court ultimately upheld the wage order in question, finding, first, that it was within the scope of authority conferred on the Industrial Welfare Commission by the Legislature and was reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of Labor Code section 1171, and, second, even treating the wage order as “a purely interpretive regulation,” it was entitled to “considerable judicial deference” as an agency decision of long standing that had been adopted formally by notice-and-comment procedures. (20 Cal.4th at pp. 800-801.)

Whether a unitary standard of review applies to agency action with characteristics of both quasi-legislative and interpretive decisionmaking, and if so, what that standard is, has not yet been settled by the California Supreme Court. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Board of Equalization (2013) 57 Cal.4th 401, 436 [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 702, 304 P.3d 188] (conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.) [“This court has not resolved what standard of review applies to such hybrid cases.” (original italics)].) But in the meantime, the Courts of Appeal have used the same two-track approach that the Supreme Court used in Ramirez, analyzing such decisions under the standards of review applicable to both. (See Diageo-Guinness USA, Inc. v. Board. of Equalization (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 907, 917-922 ]140 Cal.Rptr.3d 358] [regulations adopted by the Board of Equalization defining the statutory term “distilled spirits” found to be both quasi-legislative and interpretive; regulation invalidated]; Megrabian v. Saenz (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 468, 477-487 [30 Cal.Rptr.3d 262] [benefits eligibility decision by the State Department of Social Services, embodied in its manual of policies and procedures, found to be both quasi-legislative and interpretive; agency decision upheld].) In this case, the first step of the Ramirez test is easily satisfied, since the interpretive position the CPUC has taken is broadly within the scope of authority conferred upon it by Article 5, as recognized in Southern California Gas, and bears a reasonable relation to the purposes of Article 5. The question remains, however, what weight the CPUC’s decision in this case should be given, applying Yamaha with Ramirez in mind.

D. Application of Yamaha

In evaluating the deference to be accorded agency decisionmaking under Yamaha, we apply a group of interrelated “situational” factors that break down into two broad categories (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 11-13): first, those suggesting that the agency may have some “ ‘comparative interpretive advantage’ ” over courts in deciding the issue in question (id. at pp. 11-12), and, second, those indicating that the interpretation in question is “ ‘probably correct’ ” (id. at pp. 12-13).

The comparative advantage criteria all focus on the substantive nature of the interpretive issue decided by the agency. We look to whether “ ‘the agency has expertise and technical knowledge, especially where the legal text to be interpreted is technical, obscure, complex, open-ended, or entwined with issues of fact, policy, and discretion,’ ” as for example when an agency is interpreting its own regulations, since it is “ ‘likely to be intimately familiar with regulations it authored and sensitive to the practical implications of one interpretation over another’ ” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 12). The likely to be correct criteria, by contrast, all focus on circumstantial evidence surrounding the agency’s decision. Here, we look to whether there are indications of careful consideration by senior agency officials (id. at p. 13), whether the agency “ ‘has consistently maintained the interpretation in question, especially if [it] is long-standing’ ” (ibid.), whether the interpretation was contemporaneous with legislative enactment of the statute being interpreted (ibid.), and whether the decision or rule in question was adopted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.), since that statute requires formal process (e.g., notice-and-comment procedures for issuance of regulations) “enhancing] the accuracy and reliability of the administrative ‘product’ ” (19 Cal.4th at p. 13).

1. The Position Taken By the CPUC Is Informed By Significant Expertise, Is One of Long Standing, and Existed at the Time of Article 5’s Enactment.

Applying Yamaha's “situational” factors on this record, three factors— agency expertise, longevity of the CPUC’s interpretive position, and the contemporaneousness of that position with enactment — appear to be most important, and they all cut in favor of giving deference to CPUC’s interpretation. First, it seems undeniable that the CPUC has considerable expertise relevant to its interpretation of Article 5, since the origin of the “substantial contribution” test goes back to a set of regulations that the CPUC itself adopted in 1980, and since the CPUC has decades of accumulated practical experience applying iterations of that test. It also seems clear that when the Legislature enacted Article 5 in 1984, and then amended it significantly in 1992, it was building on top of the CPUC’s administrative experience when it codified and refined the “substantial contribution” test.

Second and third, the interpretive position taken by the CPUC in this case — at least in its outcome, putting aside for now its reasoning — is one of long standing; such long standing, in fact, that it dates all the way back to Article 5’s enactment, and before. For context here in particular, the statutory history must be kept in mind. Left unaddressed explicitly in Article 5, even as amended in 1992, was a question brought into sharp focus by the broadened definition of “proceeding” in section 1802, subdivision (f) as amended: What happens with fee eligibility when an intervenor participates extensively in proceedings such as workshops, mediations, settlement conferences or any other of the many forms of informal proceedings (coming into use in the early 1990s more and more often, as Assemblywoman Moore pointed out) in which no one wins on the merits in the conventional sense? Clearly, the Legislature contemplated that there would be fee eligibility in such proceedings, for that was why Assembly Bill 1975 expressly included nontraditional types of proceedings in the definition of “proceeding.” But other than that, nothing in the amended language of Article 5 speaks to the issue directly. And while there is no explicit answer to this question in the revised language of Article 5, by 1992 the Legislature was acting against a backdrop in which there was already a clear answer.

The CPUC first answered the question in November 1981 in The Environmental Defense Fund Requests Compensation for Its Participation in SoCal Edison Co.’s Application for a Certificate for the Harry Allen/Warner Valley Energy System (1981) 7 Cal.P.U.C.2d 75 (Allen/Warner), the very case that led the CPUC to promulgate the 011 100 Regulations. In Allen/Warner, Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison and several other utilities sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a coal-fired power plant. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) participated extensively in these certificate proceedings as an intervenor, but ultimately there was no decision on the merits because the certificate application was abruptly withdrawn by the utility proponents on the eve of the hearing. (Allen/Warner, supra, 7 Cal.P.U.C.2d at pp. 78-79.) Acknowledging that strict application of the “substantial contribution” test required a showing that it had “adopted” some “factual contention(s), legal contention(s), and/or specific recommendation(s)” of EDF in an “order or decision,” the CPUC decided that an “exception” was warranted for the “unique circumstances” of an unexpected, abrupt dismissal. (Allen/Warner, supra, 7 Cal.P.U.C.2d at pp. 103, 95.) This exception — explained in Allen/Warner as a discretionary rule, applicable as a matter of equity — was ultimately codified in rule 76.26 of the OII 100 Regulations, which provided that “In proceedings where some or all of the relief sought by a participant is obtained without a Commission order or decision, the participant may be entitled to compensation by clearly establishing a causal relationship between its participation and such relief.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, former § 76.26 (former rule 76.26), italics added.)

Since Allen/Warner was decided in 1981, the CPUC has invoked its discretion to award intervenor compensation many times in cases resolved without a decision on the merits, in a wide variety of settings. Among these cases was a telecommunications merger review proceeding more than a decade ago where the proposed merger was withdrawn before any decision on the merits issued. (See Opinion on Requests for Intervenor Compensation in Application 99-12-012 of MCI WorldCom, Inc. and Sprint Corporation (July 17, 2002) Cal.P.U.C. Decision No. 02-07-030 [2002 Cal.P.U.C. Lexis 438] (MCI).) 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 contribut