7. Planning and Conservation League Foundation's Intervenor Status

The PCLF filed its NOI to claim compensation in this proceeding on June 6, 2011, five months beyond the Public Utilities Code Section 1804(a)(1) 30-day deadline after holding a PHC. The PHC in this proceeding was held on November 22, 2010. Therefore, any request for eligibility to claim intervenor compensation was to be filed no later than December 22, 2010. Subsequently on August 4, 2011, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling that found PCLF ineligible to seek intervenor compensation in the proceeding due to PCLF having filed its NOI to claim compensation five months beyond the statutory deadline for filing its intent.

Following is a time line summary of activities and dates applicable to PCLF's NOI request and activities in this proceeding:

EVENT	DATE
Prehearing Conference Held	November 11, 2010
NOI Statutory Due Date	December 22, 2010
PCLF Request for Party Status	May 24, 2011
PCLF Issues Proposed Testimony	May 25, 2011
PCLF File its NOI	June 6, 2011
Evidentiary Hearings Held	June 8-13, 2011
PCLF Testifies	June13, 2011
DRA Protest to PCLF's NOI	June 21, 2011
PCLF's Reply to DRA Protest	July 5, 2011
PCLF's Opening Brief Filed	July 6, 2011
PCLF's Reply Brief Filed	July 19, 2011
PCLF's NOI is Denied	August 4, 2011

PCLF explained in its reply to DRA's protest that it did not timely file its NOI because until DRA filed its May 5, 2011 rebuttal testimony recommending a 99.85% disallowance of Cal-Am's $69.7 million project costs and $21.7 million disallowance of Cal-Am's San Clemente Dam Memorandum Account, it did not have adequate notice that the issue of whether shareholders should cover most of the costs of the project would be at issue in this proceeding. PCLF asserted that DRA's recommendation that shareholders should bear virtually all of the costs far exceeds any reasonable expectation the PCLF could have anticipated. DRA's disallowance recommendation was at odds with statements in its October 29, 2010 protest to the application stating that it would make recommendations to the Commission on whether Cal-Am's shareholders should bear some of the project costs related to the Project and whether Shareholders should bear some responsibility for San Clemente Dam Memorandum Account costs. Therefore, PCLF filed its NOI late.

Public Utilities Code Section 1804(a)(1) provides that in cases where the schedule would not reasonably allow parties to identify issues within the timeframe set forth in statutes, or where new issues emerge subsequent to the time set for filing, the Commission may determine an appropriate procedure for accepting new or revised notices of intent.

This is a unique case in which parties left the PHC with the understanding that there may be an issue regarding shareholders incurring some of the costs associated with the project and the memorandum account. However, it was not until six months beyond the PHC that it became known to parties that DRA was recommending that Cal-Am shareholders shoulder most all of these costs. We observe that PCLF had filed its NOI upon becoming aware of DRA's recommendations, submitted testimony, testified, and provided comments and reply comments after the completion of evidentiary hearings before the August 4, 2011 formal ruling finding PCLF ineligible to seek intervenor compensation.

Given the unique circumstances surrounding PCLF's NOI and consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 1804(a)(1) we accept PCLF's June 6, 2011 NOI and find it eligible to claim compensation. However, PCLF should be aware that a finding of its eligibility in no way ensures that it will be awarded any compensation. This approval is unique to the circumstances in this proceeding and shall not be considered precedent setting in any other proceeding.