4. NOI to Claim Compensation

TURN, PA, and GL/LIF timely filed NOIs after the first PHC. By a ruling dated April 1, 1999 (Eligibility Ruling), the assigned ALJ found each to be a customer as defined in Section 1802(b). The Eligibility Ruling also found that TURN and PA demonstrated significant financial hardship (as defined in Section 1802(g) in their NOI filings. The Eligibility Ruling also required that GL/LIF include a showing of significant financial hardship in the request for compensation.

In response, GL/LIF referred to hardship showings made in other proceedings regarding the relevant time period. Specifically, in D.00-04-011, the Commission found that GL/LIF met the test based on documentation provided on December 23, 1999, in Rulemaking (R.) 98-12-015. For purposes of this proceeding we will apply this finding of significant financial hardship.

In the Eligibility Ruling, both PA and GL/LIF were put on notice that their estimated budgets appeared potentially excessive. PA estimated total fees and costs of $323,400. (The amount sought in the Request is $325,649.) GL/LIF estimated their budget to be $301,500. (The amount sought in the Request is $323,276.50, and an additional $642.72 is claimed in the Errata.)⁴

Over the past few years the Commission has erected additional tests for compensation eligibility through a partial reading of Pub. Util. Code section 1801.3, which places exclusive emphasis on one subdivision of that intent section, 1801.3(f), rather giving effect to the plain language of the substantive provisions of section 1803 and all of the subdivisions of 1801.3 equally. Many of these additional tests were adopted in D.98-04-059. This decision overrules that former decision to the extent that it erects additional barriers to compensation and, specifically, to the extent that it is authority for imposing a duplication penalty to reduce awards for making a substantial contribution. The Eligibility Ruling put all intervenors on notice that to the extent their efforts in the proceeding duplicate the efforts of other parties, they are at risk for receiving reduced or no compensation for such efforts. All intervenors were directed to address the issues of underrepresentation, fair determination and duplication in their subsequent requests for compensation. In view of our decision today, the practice of adding eligibility criteria such as these derived from the misreading of the statues in D.98-04-059 will have to be modified.