2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation
The intervenor compensation program, set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812,3 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.
CARE filed a timely NOI to claim compensation in this proceeding on April 27, 2007. Pursuant to a ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Brown on September 5, 2007, CARE was found eligible to claim compensation.
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).) The September 5, 2007 ruling issued by ALJ Brown found that CARE met the definition of a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C).
An intervenor seeking compensation must show that, without undue hardship, it cannot pay the reasonable costs of effective participation in the proceeding. A participant representing consumers or a representative authorized by a customer must disclose its finances to the Commission to make this showing. These showings may be made under an appropriate protective order. In the case of groups or organizations, significant financial hardship is demonstrated by showing that the economic interest of individual members is small compared to the overall costs of effective participation. (§ 1802(g).) Such a finding is normally made in the ALJ's preliminary ruling as to whether the customer will be eligible for compensation. (§ 1804(b).)
CARE was found to have met the significant financial hardship test under § 1802(g) in ALJ Brown's ruling of September 5, 2007.
Regarding the timeliness of the request for compensation, CARE filed its request for compensation on December 19, 2008, within 60 days of issuance of D.08-10-039 in this same proceeding, the Order Denying Rehearing Of Decision 08-05-028.4 SCE timely filed an opposition to CARE's request for an award of compensation on January 20, 2009, objecting to CARE's claim on the basis that they failed to make a substantial contribution to the proceeding and the costs claimed by CARE were unreasonably excessive. Accordingly, SCE requested that the Commission deny the claim outright, or at a minimum, substantially reduce the amount of the award. We consider the requests of both parties in this claim.
In view of the above, we affirm the ALJ's ruling and find that CARE has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation in this proceeding.
3 All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
4 D.08-10-039, Order Denying Rehearing of Decision (D.) 08-05-028, issued on October 21, 2008.
