2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation
The intervenor compensation program, set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812,1 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.
Section 1804 (a)(1) requires an intervenor who intends to seek a compensation award to file an NOI within 30 days after the PHC, if any is held. In accordance with D.06-12-041, which adopted amendments to Rule 17.1, the intervenor is also allowed to seek an earlier determination of eligibility. (D.06-12-041, at 3.) An intervenor can file an NOI any time after the start of the proceeding until 30 days after the PHC.
The Greenlining Institute (Greenlining) timely filed its NOI on January 3, 2007, prior to the February 9, 2007 PHC.
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 13, 2007, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Long issued a ruling that found Greenlining is a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C), because of its status as an organization authorized to represent the interests of its member, most of whom are residential customers.
Regarding the timeliness of the request for compensation, Greenlining filed its request for compensation on September 10, 2008, within 60 days of D.08-07-046 being issued.2 No party opposed the request.
2.2. Financial Hardship
Section 1804(b)(a) provides that a finding of significant financial hardship creates a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for compensation in other Commission proceedings commencing within one year of the date of that finding. In its NOI, Greenlining asserted that the rebuttable presumption under § 1804(b)(1) applies to its participation in this proceeding. In doing so, Greenlining refers to a finding of significant financial hardship in a joint Commissioners' ruling on April 1, 2004 in Investigation 04-02-007.
However, more than two years passed between the date of our prior finding and the date of the commencement of this proceeding, December 8, 2006. Therefore, the April 1, 2004 ruling did not serve to create a rebuttable presumption of significant financial hardship for Greenlining, in this docket. Accordingly, ALJ Long ruled on March 17, 20083 that Greenlining had failed to demonstrate "significant financial hardship" in its NOI, but allowed Greenlining to make a showing of "significant financial hardship" in its request for compensation to be eligible for an award. (Section 1804(a)(2)(B).)
In the subject request for compensation, Greenlining offers a more recent ruling in A.07-11-011, issued on March 17, 2008, confirming that Greenlining satisfied a showing of significant financial hardship "as the members of Greenlining are largely residential customers. Accordingly, the economic interests of their members in any rate impact that might result from this proceeding, are small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in this Commission proceeding."4
We extend that finding to Greenlining's participation in this proceeding through a rebuttable presumption of eligibility pursuant to § 1804(b)(1).
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 D.08-07-046 was issued on August 1, 2008.
3 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Finding Utility Consumers' Action Network and The Greenlining Institute Eligible to Claim Compensation of March 13, 2007 in A.06-12-009 at 4-5.
4 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Regarding Notices of Intent to Claim Compensation Filed by Greenlining Institute, The Utility Reform Network, Disability Rights Advocates, and Inland Aquaculture Group, L.L.C. of March 17, 2008 in A.07-11-011.
