4. Preliminary Procedural Issues
A customer who intends to seek an award of intervenor compensation must file an NOI by certain dates. For example, pursuant to § 1804(a)(1), in proceedings where a prehearing conference takes place, an intervenor needs to file an NOI no later than 30 days after the prehearing conference. In cases where no prehearing conference is scheduled, the Commission may determine the procedure to be used in filing these requests. Rule 17.1(a)(2) that became effective on March 24, 2007, provides that if it has been preliminarily determined that a hearing is not needed, an NOI may be filed any time after the start of the proceeding until 30 days after the time for filing responsive pleadings (e.g., protests, responses, answers, or comments).
There was no prehearing conference in Phase 1 of the proceeding. Opening comments on the OIR were filed on February 16, 2007.5 Greenlining and LIF filed their NOIs on March 19, 2007; and CFC and TURN filed their NOIs on March 22, 2007. CFC, Greenlining, LIF, and TURN timely filed their NOIs.6
The December 28, 2007 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling (December 28 Ruling) found that CFC, Greenlining, LIF, and TURN were eligible to claim compensation. With respect to their status for the purposes of intervenor compensation, the ruling determined that each has a customer-related status within the meaning of § 1802(b)(C) as a "representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interest of residential customers, or to represent small commercial customers...."
Section 1804(b)(1) provides that a finding of significant financial hardship creates a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for compensation in other Commission proceedings commencing within one year of the date of that finding. The December 28 Ruling found that CFC and Greenlining will experience significant financial hardship as a result of their participation in this proceeding based on the findings in other proceedings that they would experience significant financial hardship.7 The December 28 Ruling also found that, pursuant to the provisions of § 1802(g), LIF will experience significant financial hardship as a result of its participation in this proceeding.8 We affirm the December 28 Ruling on CFC's, Greenlining's, and LIF's NOIs.
On August 20, 2007, Greenlining filed a request for an award of intervenor compensation for its substantial contributions to the Phase 1 Decision. On September 25, 2007, CFC, and LIF filed their requests for an award of intervenor compensation for their substantial contributions to the Phase 1 Decision. The requests were timely filed in compliance with § 1804(c). No party opposed the requests.
CFC and Greenlining amended their requests in response to ALJ rulings directing them to correct deficiencies in their requests.9 We find that CFC, Greenlining, and LIF have completed the procedural steps and satisfied the requirements necessary to request compensation for their contributions to the Phase 1 Decision. Now we turn to substantive review of their requests.
5 January 17, 2007 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Regarding Schedule and Record for Limited English Proficiency Rulemaking.
6 CFC's NOI was not late-filed because Rule 17.1 became effective after the NOIs were filed.
7 CFC met this requirement in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding pursuant to the ALJ Ruling of March 7, 2007 in A.06-09-016. Greenlining met this requirement in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding pursuant to the ALJ Ruling of October 11, 2006 in R.05-04-005.
8 Section 1802(g) provides that "significant financial hardship" for Category 3 customers occurs when the economic interest of the individual members of the group or organization is small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in the proceeding.
9 See September 11, 2007 ALJ Ruling Directing Greenlining Institute to Amend Its Request for Award of Compensation for Contributions to D.07-07-043; October 2, 2007 ALJ Ruling Directing Greenlining Institute to Further Amend Its Request for Award of Compensation for Contributions to D.07-07-043; and October 2, 2007 ALJ Ruling Directing Consumer Federation of California to Amend Its Request for Award of Compensation for Contributions to D.07-07-043.
