2. 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, pursuant to Rule 17.1, 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).

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.

Orcutt's NOI was timely under § 1804(c). The prehearing conference was held on April 19, 2006. Orcutt filed a timely NOI on May 15, 2006. A final decision was issued on April 10, 2008, and Orcutt's request for intervenor compensation was filed within 60 days on April 28, 2008. No party opposes the request.

In its NOI, Orcutt asserted financial hardship. On July 7, 2006, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John E. Thorson ruled Orcutt meets the financial hardship condition pursuant to §1802(g).

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).) The July 7, 2006 ruling found Orcutt a "representative who has been authorized" pursuant to § 1802(1)(b). The finding of financial hardship is also affirmed in D.07-05-041.

¹ All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.