E. Findings of Eligibility for Intervenor Compensation

On February 14, 2005, both TURN and AECA filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to claim compensation in these proceedings pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1804(a). Under this provision, a party that intends to seek compensation for its participation in a proceeding must include in its NOI a showing that it is a customer or represents customers, as well as (1) a statement of the nature and extent of the customer's planned participation in the proceeding (§ 1804(a)(2)(A)(i)), and (2) an itemized estimate of the compensation the customer expects to request, given the likely duration of the proceeding when the NOI is filed (§1804(a)(2)(A)(ii)). In addition, the customer may present in its NOI a showing that participation in the proceeding would represent a significant financial hardship, but the customer may also defer that showing until it files a compensation request. (§1804(a)(2)(B).)

TURN's NOI satisfies all of these requirements, including the hardship showing. TURN's NOI notes that it intends to address issues including the cost and revenue impact of the engine conversion program on residential ratepayers, whether the proposed program makes a positive CTM, and whether the program might unduly impact system reliability. TURN's itemized estimate states that it expects to seek about $50,500 in compensation, assuming a week of hearings. Finally, TURN's NOI notes that in a ruling issued on July 27, 2004 in R.04-04-003, it was found to have met the burden of demonstrating financial hardship. Under Pub. Util. Code § 1804(b)(1), such a finding creates "a rebuttable presumption of eligibility for compensation in other commission proceedings commencing within one year of the date of that finding." Since these proceedings were commenced within one year of the July 27, 2004 ruling, the rebuttable presumption of financial hardship applies. Thus, based on its NOI, TURN is eligible for an award of intervenor compensation in this proceeding.

AECA's NOI provides a statement of the nature and extent of its planned participation in the proceeding, as well as an itemized estimate that its budget for the proceeding is expected to be $160,000. However, AECA states that it "will include its showing of significant financial hardship as part of its request for compensation in this proceeding," and not in the NOI. (AECA NOI, p. 4.)

While AECA's showing permits us to make a preliminary determination that is eligible for an award of compensation, that determination, as the ALJ held in A.02-05-004, "is conditioned upon [AECA's] successfully making a showing of significant financial hardship and . . . providing certain other information."¹⁷ For example, after noting that AECA's membership included a significant number of water districts, and that public agencies are not considered "customers" eligible for compensation under Pub. Util. Code § 1802(b)(2), the Edison GRC NOI Ruling stated:

"I again determine that in the event AECA files a request for compensation in this proceeding, it should include in that filing a demonstration of how it qualifies as a customer in this proceeding under § 1802(b) notwithstanding its representation of water districts. AECA should also provide in any compensation request additional information to clarify the nature and role of its association members, and explain whether and how such members affect its status as a customers under § 1802(b). Finally, AECA should include data that would enable the Commission to affirm, update, or otherwise address the 61.6% compensation factor adopted for AECA in previous compensation awards." (Id. at 5.)

In the NOI it filed on February 14, AECA purports to address some of these concerns. It states, for example, that its members include "individual producers, processors [and] produce cooling operations," and that these members should be considered "small commercial customers" within the meaning of Pub. Util. Code §1802(b)(1)(C), even though some of them are apparently also represented by one or more of the 19 agricultural industry associations that are also AECA members. The NOI also states that AECA "will not request any compensation for its representation on behalf of water districts, which are public agencies" and thus ineligible for compensation under § 1802(b)(2). However, the NOI presents no quantification - in terms of dues paid or number of members - that would enable us to assess how significant a role water districts and agricultural industry associations play in determining AECA's affairs. In the absence of such information, we cannot now find -- as AECA has requested -- that it is an organization authorized to represent small customers within the meaning of Pub. Util. Code § 1802(b)(1)(C).

In the Edison GRC NOI Ruling, the ALJ noted that "AECA did not explicitly discuss whether it represents customer interests that would otherwise be underrepresented in this proceeding," and pointed out that "AECA assumes the risk of reduced compensation or denial of compensation to the extent that it represents interests that are, or would be, adequately represented in the absence of AECA's participation." (Mimeo. at 5.) In its NOI, AECA states that its showing of significant financial hardship will address these issues, as well as data bearing on whether the 61.6% compensation factor should be updated or retained.

We look forward to reviewing all of the material that AECA has represented will be in its compensation request. We also remind AECA that "a finding of significant financial hardship in no way ensures compensation." (§ 1804(b)(2).)