5. Status as a Customer and Other Procedural Issues

The prehearing conference in this matter was held on May 10, 2000. GSMOL filed its NOI on June 12, 2000 and by ruling on July 13, 2000, the ALJ found the filing timely. On July 13, 2000, ALJ Vieth issued a ruling that preliminarily found GSMOL to be a customer under the Public Utilities Code. The ruling also indicated that GSMOL had not yet met the significant financial hardship condition and would be required to address that issue in its request for compensation. GSMOL filed its request for compensation on July 21, 2004, within the required 60 days of D.04-06-007 being issued. In its NOI, GSMOL asserted financial hardship. On August 26 and 27, 2004 PG&E and WMA filed responses to GSMOL's request. On September 10, 2004, GSMOL filed a reply to these responses. PG&E and WMA contend that GSMOL represented tenants of submetered MHPs in this proceeding. Since such tenants are not utility customers, PG&E and WMA state that GSMOL does not meet the definition of a customer in § 1802(b). Therefore, PG&E and WMA recommend denial of the request. In its reply, GSMOL represents that it does qualify as a customer, and that it was previously awarded intervenor compensation in D.03-02-024.

As explained in prior sections of this decision, we find that GSMOL's efforts in this proceeding were exclusively on behalf of complainant Hambly or addressed matters beyond the scope of the proceeding. For this reason, we find that GSMOL's efforts in this complaint case were not compensable under the Commission's intervenor compensation program. However, because of the earlier award to GSMOL in D.03-02-024, we need to explain the "customer" finding underlying that award and to distinguish that decision from the circumstances in this complaint proceeding. Although the ALJ here made a preliminary finding that GSMOL met the definition of customer, we take this opportunity to reverse that ruling.

Pub. Util. Code § 1802 (b)(1)(C) defines a customer as a group or organization authorized by its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers. GSMOL is an organization authorized to represent MHP tenants. This proceeding had to do with tenants of a submetered MHP, and § 739.5. Had we found that GSMOL made a statewide impact in this proceeding, it would pertain only to tenants of submetered MHPs. Such tenants are provided electricity and gas by the MHP owner, not the utility that serves the MHP owner. As a result, such tenants are not utility customers. Because these tenants are not utility customers, GSMOL does not meet the definition of customer for purposes of eligibility to claim intervenor compensation.

In addition, § 1807 provides that "Any award made under this article shall be paid by the utility that is the subject of the...proceeding..." In this instance, no utility is the subject of the proceeding. Therefore, there is no utility to pay intervenor compensation, had we found GSMOL's efforts compensable.

We acknowledge that in I.98-12-012, GSMOL filed a notice of intent to seek compensation, and was ultimately awarded compensation in that proceeding. I.98-12-012 addressed concerns about the legitimacy of charges for water and sewer services imposed on tenants by the owners of MHPs and multiple unit residential complexes. The Commission looked at statewide information about the practices of owners of MHPs and multiple unit residential complexes that bill tenants for water and sewer services separately from rent. In that case, GSMOL was found to have met the qualifications for customer status, and was granted compensation by D.03-02-024.¹¹ Because I.98-12-012 was initiated to address matters directly related to tenants of MHPs and multiple unit residential complexes that bill tenants for water and sewer services separately from rent, in order for tenants to have a voice in that policy-making proceeding, it was appropriate to allow GSMOL, who represented such tenants, the opportunity to request intervenor compensation. Compensation was paid out of a special fund established in D.00-01-020 for payment of intervenor compensation in proceedings where the Commission establishes policy affecting an industry, or all regulated industries (generally quasi-legislative proceedings) where no specific respondent utilities are named.

Unlike I.98-12-012, this proceeding is an adjudicatory complaint case. As such, it is not a policy-making proceeding, and does not meet the requirements of D.00-01-020. In addition, no utility is a defendant, respondent, or party. Therefore, notwithstanding the ALJ ruling which preliminarily found GSMOL to be a customer, we have no means to award compensation in this proceeding had such an award been found appropriate.