ALJ/SRT/jva DRAFT Agenda ID #3451
Ratesetting
5/27/04 Item 8
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ THOMAS (Mailed 4/12/2004)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Joint Application of Southern California Gas Company (U 904 G) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902 M) for Authority to Continue Funding of LEV Programs. |
Application 02-03-047 (Filed March 25, 2002) |
|
Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) to Extend the Operation of its Electric Vehicle Adjustment Clause Mechanism and Related Accounts Until the Date of the Commission's Final Decision in SCE's Test Year 2003 General Rate Case Proceeding. |
Application 02-03-048 (Filed March 25, 2002) |
|
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Review of and Authorization for Recovery of Costs Relating to Its Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program for 2002 through 2005. (U 39 E) |
Application 02-03-049 (Filed March 25, 2002) |
OPINION DENYING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION
This decision denies the request of Raymond Tate, Jr., for intervenor compensation for contributions to Decision (D.) 03-10-086 (which approved continued ratepayer funding for utility low-emission vehicle (LEV) programs) because Tate failed to timely file a Notice of Intent (NOI) as required by § 1804(a)1 and does not meet the definition of a "customer" under § 1802(b).
I. Background
In March 2002, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (So Cal Gas) (together utilities) filed applications for continued funding of their LEV programs. Tate, chairman of Liberty Fuels, Inc. (LFI), subsequently intervened in the proceeding, opposing continued ratepayer funding of certain utility LEV programs.
On May 21, 2002, a prehearing conference (PHC) was held in this matter. Tate filed his NOI on July 1, 2002. In the NOI, Tate argued that LFI, a for-profit alternative fuel and alternative fuels equipment vendor, qualifies as a "customer" as defined in § 1802(b), because LFI is a utility customer and a "consumer service enterprise authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation to represent the interests of itself and it's (sic) customers and subscribers." The NOI estimated that Tate would seek intervenor compensation in the amount of $180,935.00 for labor costs and $3,500 for expenses based on his participation in this proceeding.
On December 30, 2003, Tate filed a request for intervenor compensation that sought an award of $269,6222 based on his contributions to the proposed decision of the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the proposed alternate decision of Commissioner Loretta Lynch, and the alternate decision of Commissioner Susan Kennedy, which the Commission adopted as D.03-10-086 on October 30, 2003. PG&E opposes Tate's request on several grounds.3
1 All Code references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise stated. 2 Tate is requesting an award of $266,301 for labor performed by himself, his counsel, and various consultants, and $3,321 for expenses incurred in connection with this participation in this proceeding. 3 PG&E filed timely opposition to Tate's request on January 29, 2004. Tate filed a response to PG&E's opposition on February 9, 2004.
