3. NOI to Claim Compensation
After review of the NOI filed by Sawaya in this proceeding, the assigned ALJ preliminarily found Sawaya eligible to file for intervenor compensation by ruling dated September 1, 2000.5
5 In its opposition to Sawaya's application for an award of intervenor compensation, MCI asks the Commission to reconsider the ALJ's preliminary ruling that Sawaya is a "customer" pursuant to § 1802(b). MCI contends that Sawaya is not a customer because he did not specifically represent the other six intervenors who also received their payments of intervenor compensation from MCI late. However, since Sawaya's complaint sought the imposition of penalties to deter MCI from substantially delaying payment to other intervenors in the future, Sawaya qualifies as a "customer". Sawaya also qualifies as a customer because he represents himself as an individual customer of MCI. D.00-02-044.
