2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation

The intervenor compensation program, which is set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812,² 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 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 date 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 January 15, 2008. Greenlining timely filed its NOI on January 23, 2008.

In its NOI, Greenlining asserted financial hardship. On March 17, 2008, the ALJ ruled that Greenlining meets the financial hardship condition pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1804(b)(2), but noted that this finding in no way ensures 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).) On March 17, 2008, the ALJ issued a ruling that found Greenlining a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C).

Regarding the timeliness of the request for compensation, Greenlining submitted its request for compensation on May 11, 2009, within 60 days of D.09-03-025 being issued.

In view of the above, we find that Greenlining has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation in this proceeding.

SCE responded to Greenlining's request for Intervenor Compensation on June 10, 2009. Greenlining replied on June 23, 2009. We address the merits of the responses in Sections 3 and 5 of this decision, but briefly summarize the contents here. SCE contends that Greenlining's request: 1) should be adjusted for the number of hours claimed, in particular with regards to inclusion of travel time; 2) overstates the time it spent in attendance at a settlement conference with SCE; 3) should be reduced for time devoted to community meetings; 4) should be reduced for excessive time spent in internal meetings; 5) should be reduced for time spent in ex parte communications with Commissioners Chong, Simon, and Grueneich; 6) should be reduced for time spent on its Motion to Compel testimony of John Bryson; and 7) should be reduced due to use of excessive hourly rates.

Greenlining replied that: 1) the time it spent on outreach and Public Participation Hearings should be compensated; 2) the Commission could adjust the time spent on Greenlining's Motion to Compel testimony of John Bryson, instead of disallowing all of the time; and 3) some of the hourly rates requested by Greenlining have been approved in prior Commission decisions, and that compensation for its Legal Fellow, Stephanie Chen, is appropriate.

² All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util. Code) unless otherwise indicated.