3. Customer Status
The October 30, 2006 eligibility ruling, found that Sustainable Conservation had not established its eligibility for intervenor compensation as a Category 3 customer, nor demonstrated significant financial hardship. The ruling concluded that Sustainable Conservation could further address its eligibility in a subsequent pleading or request for compensation.
On September 24, 2007, within 60 days of the date of D.07-07-027, Sustainable Conservation filed a claim for $30,394.50. On February 21, 2008, Sustainable Conservation amended its claim to assert, among other things, that it was a Category 1 customer. On July 10, 2008, we denied the claim, finding that Sustainable Conservation failed to establish significant financial hardship as a Category 1 customer.2
On October 15, 2008, Sustainable Conservation filed the claim we consider today. It requests $30,394.50, the same amount of money denied in D.08-07-021, for its significant contributions to D.07-07-027. In its claim, Sustainable Conservation reasserts its Category 3 customer status. Because we narrowly examined its prior claim based on Sustainable Conservation's customer Category 1 assertion at that time, and Sustainable Conservation has now broadened and updated its customer showing, we review its eligibility in this light.
Sustainable Conservation includes information in its October 15, 2008 request that it believes establishes that the organization consistently met the requirements of an organization eligible for compensation under a Category 3 claim. Sustainable Conservation maintains, as it has since filing its first Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation in October 2006, that it was eligible to receive intervenor compensation as a Category 3 customer because it is a:
... representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers, or to represent small commercial customers who receive bundled service from an electrical corporation.3
Sustainable Conservation first amended its bylaws in September 2006, prior to filing its NOI. At that time, Article 3 of the organization's bylaws were amended to include as part of its mission:
To represent interests related to the Corporation's conservation activities in regulatory, judicial and legislative proceedings.4
On October 2, 2008, Sustainable Conservation amended and clarified its bylaws, and on October 15, 2008 provided a copy for Commission review. The full bylaws as amended are included as Attachment B in this most recent claim and now state that the organization's mission includes:
(b) To represent interests related to the Corporation's conservation activities in regulatory, judicial and legislative proceedings.
(c) To represent the interests of California residential electrical and natural gas customers and small commercial electrical and natural gas customers, including those who receive bundled electrical and/or natural gas service from investor-owned electrical and/or natural gas services corporations, in an environmentally and economically sustainable California.5
Based on this latest information, we find that Sustainable Conservation is clearly a Category 3 customer as of October 2008 when it modified its bylaws to explicitly reflect its representation of residential and small commercial customers. However, because the request for compensation covers a time period prior to this more recent bylaw modification, we must consider whether the ALJ correctly ruled in the October 30, 2006 ruling that Sustainable Conservation was not eligible as a Category 3 customer.
The October 30, 2006 ALJ Ruling found that Sustainable Conservation had not met its burden of showing that it represented residential or small commercial ratepayers consistent with the requirements of § 1802(b)(1)(C). For example, the ALJ noted that Sustainable Conservation is not a membership organization but rather a donor organization and thus, based on the information provided in the NOI, it was difficult to determine whether Sustainable Conservation truly represented the interests of residential or small commercial ratepayers. In addition, the ALJ's review of Sustainable Conservation's objectives and purposes, as set forth in the bylaws, did not provide a direct nexus to representing residential or small commercial customers.
In its October 15, 2008 request, Sustainable Conservation states that it represents customers with a concern for the environment and sustainable agricultural practices, particularly renewable energy that reduces methane emissions. Sustainable Conservation goes on to cite D.98-04-059 at 29, fn 14, the longstanding Commission practice with respect to determining eligibility of environmental organizations:
With respect to environmental groups, we have concluded they were eligible in the past with the understanding that they represent customers whose environmental interests include the concern that, e.g., regulatory policies encourage the adoption of all cost-effective conservation measures and discourage unnecessary new generating resources that are expensive and environmentally damaging.
Sustainable Conservation argues that we should apply this same standard in reviewing its eligibility as has been applied to other environmental organizations.
We have taken this opportunity to review the bylaws of many of the organizations that have been found eligible for intervenor compensation in the past and conclude that, while many of the organizations that have been awarded compensation have explicit language in their bylaws authorizing their representation of residential and/or small commercial customers,6 there are numerous other participants in our proceedings that have been found eligible as Category 3 customers whose bylaws do not contain an explicit reference to representation of residential or small commercial customers. For the most part, the organizations whose bylaws are less explicit with respect to ratepayer representation have a broader purpose than just appearing before the California Public Utilities Commission. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has regularly appeared at the Commission, and received intervenor compensation, for the past 20 years. NRDC's bylaws authorize it to "represent members' interests in regulatory and judicial proceedings within the scope of the activities of the Corporation." The activities of the corporation include to "preserve, protect and defend natural resources, wildlife and environment against encroachment, misuse and destruction."7 Consumer Federation of California, National Consumer Law Center, and Disability Rights Advocates also all have bylaws that are not specific to representation of ratepayers.8 All of these organizations represent groups that have a stake in the outcomes of our proceedings and bring with them a public interest perspective.
Pub. Util. Code § 1801.3(b) indicates that the Legislature intends for us to administer the provisions of §§ 1801 et seq. in a manner "that encourages the effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility regulation process." The ALJ's more narrow reading of the requirements of § 1802(b)(1)(C) which resulted in the ruling that Sustainable Conservation was not a Category 3 customer appears inconsistent with longstanding Commission practice and would foil the legislative intent that our administration of the intervenor compensation statutes encourage participation.
After reviewing Sustainable Conservation's October 2006 NOI, the October 30, 2006 ALJ Ruling, D.08-07-021, Sustainable Conservation's October 15, 2008 request for compensation, Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801 et seq., and bylaws and rulings on eligibility of other intervenors, we conclude that Sustainable Conservation could and should have been found eligible as a Category 3 customer based on its original bylaws. Therefore, we conclude that Sustainable Conservation meets the criteria as a customer for purposes of intervenor compensation and we may consider its entire request for compensation.
2 D.08-07-021.
3 § 1802(b).
4 Intervenor Compensation Claim of Sustainable Conservation dated October 15, 2008 at 3.
5 Sustainable Conservation Bylaws, Article 3, Section 3.1.
6 See, for example, the bylaws of Greenlining Institute at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/NOTICE/86628.PDF, Attachment A.
7 See NRDC bylaws submitted at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/NOTICE/86678.PDF, Attachment 1 and 2.
8 Based on bylaws or articles of incorporation filed in R.06-03-004, R.04-12-001, and R.04-12-001, respectively.
