3. Requirements for Awards of Compensation
The intervenor compensation program, which is 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. To seek a compensation award, 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 1-3 above are combined and a separate discussion of Items 4-6 follows.
3.1. 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 September 16, 2008. L. Jan Reid timely filed his NOI on October 14, 2008.
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) - (C).)
In his NOI, L. Jan Reid asserts he is a customer under § 1802(b)(1)(A). L. Jan Reid states he receives electric and gas service from PG&E at his residence address in Northern California and, although he represents himself in this proceeding, his participation will benefit all residential customers of PG&E. The NOI describes Reid's own economic interests in the proceeding and the issues on which he plans to participate to the benefits of other PG&E's customer. In his protest to the application, Reid states:
I receive electric and gas service from PG&E at 3185 Gross Road, Santa Cruz, California, 95062. I believe that if the Commission grants PG&E's application without further review, the appointment of Mr. Darbee as CEO of PG&E Company may lead to an increase in PG&E Company's energy procurement costs, which would harm all PG&E Company customers.
With Reid's interest in the proceeding arising primarily from his role as a customer of the utility and also from the broader interests of other customers, Reid's status falls within the characteristics of the § 1802(b)(1)(A). The April 15, 2008 ruling in Application (A.) 07-12-021 concluded that Reid was a customer under the provisions of 1802(b)(1)(A). Since Reid's customer status has not changed, we reaffirm Reid's customer status.
In his NOI, L. Jan Reid asserted financial hardship based on the rebuttable presumption principle, pursuant to § 1804(b)(1). The Commission found L. Jan Reid met the § 1802(g) requirements in A.07-12-021 within one year of the commencement of this proceeding (Administrative Law Judge Ruling dated April 15, 2008). That finding extends to this proceeding under § 1804(b)(1).
Regarding the timeliness of the request for compensation, L. Jan Reid filed it on November 6, 2009, within 60 days of D.09-09-021 being issued.2 No party opposed the request.
In view of the above, we find that L. Jan Reid has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation in this proceeding.
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 D.09-09-021 issued on September 11, 2009.
