3. Procedural Issues

The first prehearing conference in this matter was held on May 5, 2004 and a second prehearing conference was held on December 14, 2005. Vote Solar filed its NOI August 2, 2004, which was not within 30 days of the first prehearing conference. The ALJ's ruling of August 2, 2005, however, excused the lateness of Vote Solar's NOI because Vote Solar states it was unaware of the pendency of the proceeding until shortly before it filed its NOI.

Vote Solar filed its request for compensation on May 8, 2006, approximately two months after the due date. However, its late filing is excusable in this case. We permit intervenors to seek compensation for several orders in order to limit the number of such pleadings parties must make and the Commission must address. Vote Solar could have logically assumed that additional orders would be forthcoming in this proceeding because of our stated intent to further refine CSI program elements. However, the Commission instead decided to close this proceeding and open a new docket, R.06-03-004, for consideration of related program issues. Vote Solar filed this request for compensation within 60 days of our closure of this proceeding, that is, the date we opened R.06-03-004. We therefore find it reasonable to accept Vote Solar's late filing in this proceeding.

SCE protested Vote Solar's request. SCE believes Vote Solar is an organization created to represent the interests of the solar industry. In that regard, SCE believes that Vote Solar cannot demonstrate significant financial hardship. SCE observes that Vote Solar's website suggests it is an advocacy organization for industry by stating its goal as bringing solar technology into the mainstream.

The assigned ALJ ruled on August 2, 2004 that Vote Solar is eligible for compensation and that Vote Solar qualified as a customer as defined in § 1802(b)(1). Because the issue of Vote Solar's eligibility was originally raised in Vote Solar's NOI, SCE's pending objection to Vote Solar's request for compensation is not timely. Nevertheless, we consider SCE's concerns in the interest of protecting ratepayer funds, which support the intervenor compensation program.

Vote Solar was found to have made a showing of significant financial hardship in a ruling dated September 16, 2005 in R.05-05-023. We apply a rebuttable presumption that this finding remains valid for our purposes here. Having reviewed Vote Solar's reply to SCE's pleading, and materials relevant to Vote Solar's status, we find that Vote Solar qualifies for compensation in this proceeding. Vote Solar may not have been originally organized to represent utility customers directly and explicitly. However, Vote Solar's interests do overlap those of the state's utility customers, and we have awarded intervenor compensation to other organizations, including the Natural Resource Defense Council, with institutional objectives that do not explicitly refer to utility customers but nevertheless promote utility customer interests. Vote Solar is a non-profit organization. It has stated that about 1% of its funding comes from solar industry sources. This amount of financial support does not constitute Vote Solar an advocacy group representing industry members that have a financial stake in the outcome of the proceeding. We therefore find that Vote Solar qualifies as a "customer," consistent with the ALJ's August 2004 ruling in this proceeding and the ALJ's September 2005 ruling issued in R.05-05-023.