3. Requirements for Awards of Compensation

The intervenor compensation program, enacted by the Legislature in §§ 1801-1812, requires California jurisdictional utilities to pay the reasonable costs of an intervenor's participation if the intervenor makes a substantial contribution to the Commission's proceedings. The statute provides that the utility may adjust its rates to collect the amount awarded from its ratepayers.

All of the following procedures and criteria must be satisfied for an intervenor to obtain a compensation award:

1. The intervenor must be a customer or a participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of a utility subject to our jurisdiction. (§ 1802(b).)

2. The intervenor must satisfy certain procedural requirements including the filing of a sufficient notice of intent (NOI) to claim compensation within 30 days of the prehearing conference (or in special circumstances, at other appropriate times that we specify). (§ 1804(a).)

3. The intervenor should file and serve a request for a compensation award within 60 days of our final order or decision in a hearing or proceeding. (§ 1804(c).)

4. The intervenor must demonstrate "significant financial hardship." (§§ 1802(g), 1804(b)(1).)

5. The intervenor's presentation must have made a "substantial contribution" to the proceeding, through the adoption, in whole or in part, of the intervenor's contention or recommendations by a Commission order or decision. (§§ 1802(i), 1803(a).)

6. The claimed fees and costs are comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. (§ 1806.)

Because of the unique nature of this request, we discuss Item 5 (substantial contribution) first, followed by a discussion of Item 1 (definition of a customer). Because we find that the work performed by GSMOL was either necessary for the complainant, Hambly, to meet the burden of proof, was outside of the scope of the proceeding, or had no impact on the outcome of the proceeding, we do not address whether the requested compensation was reasonable or based on market rates. We also find, regarding Item 1, that GSMOL is not a "customer" within the meaning of the statute.