3. Procedural Issues

The first PHC in this proceeding was held on February 28, 2006 by assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Carol Brown. Aglet filed its timely NOI on March 3, 2006.

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. In this case, Aglet is a customer as defined in § 1802 (b)(1)(C).

An intervenor seeking compensation must show that, without undue hardship, it cannot pay the reasonable costs of effective participation in the proceeding. In the case of groups or organizations, significant financial hardship is demonstrated by showing that the economic interest of individual members is small compared to the overall costs of effective participation. (Pub. Util. Code § 1802(g).)

Aglet asserted financial hardship in its NOI. On November 15, 2005, an ALJ ruling, issued in Application 05-06-006 et al., found that Aglet met the financial hardship condition, pursuant to § 1802(g). That ruling creates a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for Aglet, pursuant to § 1804(b)(1), because it met the financial hardship in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding.

Aglet filed the subject request for compensation on January 17, 2007. Aglet requests compensation for its work in PRGs which are on-going in nature, we find that Aglet's filings are timely. In light of the above, Aglet has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation in this proceeding.