ALJ/SRT/hkr Date of Issuance 9/22/2008
Decision 08-09-034 September 18, 2008
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of PACIFICORP (U901E), an Oregon Company, for a Permit to Construct the Line 75 115kV Conversion Project Pursuant to General Order 131-D. |
Application 05-12-011 (Filed December 13, 2005) |
Application of PACIFICORP (U901E), an Oregon Company, for a Permit to Construct the Weed Segment Project Pursuant to General Order 131-D. |
Application 07-01-046 (Filed January 26, 2007) |
DECISION GRANTING SECOND REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR COMPENSATION OF DON AND JUDY MACKINTOSH
This decision grants the second request of Don and Judy Mackintosh (the Mackintoshes) for intervenor compensation in this proceeding. The first decision, Decision (D.) 08-07-019, awarded a portion of the Mackintoshes' request for compensation related to D.07-03-043 and D.06-10-047. This second decision awards partial compensation for the Mackintoshes' substantial contribution to D.07-12-018.
While the Mackintoshes' second request is for $45,643.041 in compensation, for various reasons set forth herein, we reduce that amount by $14,005.29, and award $31,637.76.
1. Background
This proceeding involved PacifiCorp's request to upgrade transmission lines in the Yreka-Weed area of Northern California. The decision for which the Mackintoshes seek compensation here, Decision (D.) 07-12-018, granted PacifiCorp final approval to construct the southern portion of the line (and related facilities) and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared to analyze the environmental impact of that construction.2
PacifiCorp raises several challenges to the compensation request, most of which we addressed in our first compensation decision, D.08-07-019. First, PacifiCorp asserts that the Notice of Intent (NOI) was not timely filed. In D.08-07-019, we agreed that the NOI was filed late, but we noted that since it was timely served and filed late due only to inadvertence, which caused no harm to other parties, we excused the late filing.
Second, PacifiCorp alleges the Mackintoshes are not customers eligible for compensation. D.08-07-019 analyzed this claim in detail and found that the Mackintoshes qualify for compensation because their efforts benefited not only them, but everyone living near or traveling through the undisturbed valley where PacifiCorp proposed to site the new line. Thus, the Mackintoshes did not act only out of self-interest. Therefore, the Mackintoshes are customers eligible for compensation.
Third, PacifiCorp challenges the amount of compensation requested for several reasons. We agree with many of PacifiCorp's points and reduce the award accordingly, as well as for additional reasons.
1 In the Mackintoshes' original request filed on February 5, 2008, the requested amount was $45,846.32; however, on May 5, 2008, when the intervenors supplied a summary of the requested compensation, they adjusted the requested amount to $45,643.04.
2 The prior decisions (D.06-10-047 and D.07-03-043) for which we have already awarded $183,612.10 in compensation respectively approved installation of the northern portion of the line and ordered the EIR's preparation.
