2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation
The intervenor compensation program, set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812,5 requires California jurisdictional utilities to pay the reasonable costs of an intervenor's participation if that party makes a substantial contribution to the Commission's proceedings. The statute provides that the utility may adjust its rates to collect the amount awarded from its ratepayers.
All of the following procedures and criteria must be satisfied for an intervenor to obtain a compensation award:
1. The intervenor must satisfy certain procedural requirements including the filing of a sufficient notice of intent (NOI) to claim compensation within 30 days of the prehearing conference (PHC), pursuant to Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), or at another appropriate time that we specify. (§ 1804(a).)
2. The intervenor must be a customer or a participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of a utility subject to our jurisdiction. (§ 1802(b).)
3. The intervenor must file and serve a request for a compensation award within 60 days of our final order or decision in a hearing or proceeding. (§ 1804(c).)
4. The intervenor must demonstrate "significant financial hardship." (§§ 1802(g) and 1804(b)(1).)
5. The intervenor's presentation must have made a "substantial contribution" to the proceeding, through the adoption, in whole or in part, of the intervenor's contention or recommendations by a Commission order or decision or as otherwise found by the Commission. (§§ 1802(i) and 1803(a).)
6. The claimed fees and costs must be reasonable (§ 1801), necessary for and related to the substantial contribution (D.98-04-059), comparable to the market rates paid to others with comparable training and experience (§ 1806), and productive (D.98-04-059).
In the discussion below, the procedural issues in Items 1-4 above are combined and a separate discussion of Items 5-6 follows.
2.1. Preliminary Procedural Issues
Under § 1804(a)(1) and Rule 17.1(a)(1), a customer who intends to seek an award of intervenor compensation must file an NOI before certain dates.
In a proceeding in which a PHC is held, the intervenor must file and serve its NOI between the dates the proceeding was initiated until 30 days after the PHC is held. (Rule 17.1(a)(1).) The PHC in this matter was held on April 11, 2008. CFC timely filed its NOI on May 5, 2008. Pursuant to § 1804(c), interested parties were permitted to respond to the filing of CFC's NOI. No party filed a response.
In its NOI, CFC asserted financial hardship. On July 11, 2008, ALJ Pulsifer ruled6 that CFC meets the financial hardship condition pursuant to § 1804(b)(1) through a rebuttable presumption of eligibility because the Commission found CFC met this requirement in an ALJ ruling issued on April 23, 2008 in A.07-12-006. In accordance with § 1804(b)(1), because the proceeding commenced within one year of the ruling in A.07-12-006, the rebuttable presumption of financial hardship found in that proceeding, is applicable here.
Section 1802(b)(1) defines a "customer" as: (A) a participant representing consumers, customers or subscribers of a utility; (B) a representative who has been authorized by a customer; or (C) a representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential or small business customers. (§ 1802(b)(1)(A) through (C).) CFC is a non-profit federation comprising individual members and member organizations whose own membership consist of California consumer groups, senior citizens groups, and labor organizations, all of whom are residential customers of California public utilities. As affirmed in ALJ Pulsifer's ruling of July 11, 2008, CFC is a "customer" as defined by § 1802(b).
Regarding the timeliness of the request for compensation, CFC filed its request for compensation on January 23, 2009, within 60 days of the issuance of D.08-11-056.7 SCE timely filed an opposition to CFC's request based on its assertions that CFC's participation did not result in a substantial contribution to the Decision, that CFC's participation duplicated the efforts of other parties and did not provide any unique analysis, insights or perspectives, and that CFC's participant hours are excessive and unreasonable. SCE requests that the Commission either reject CFC's request in its entirety or substantially reduce the compensation award. We have considered the requests of both parties and have made adjustments to the claim where appropriate. In view of the above, we affirm the ALJ's ruling and find that CFC has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation in this proceeding.
5 All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
6 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Regarding Eligibility to Claim Intervenor Compensation, issued July 11, 2008, at 3.
7 D.08-11-056 was issued on November 24, 2008.
