D0609008 Opinion Granting Intervenor Compensation Awards to the Greenlining Institute, Latino Issues Forum, Disability Rights Advocates, and TURN for their contributions to D.05-11-029

3. Requirements for Awards of Compensation

3.1. Introduction

The intervenor compensation program, established in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812,¹ requires California jurisdictional utilities to pay the reasonable costs of an intervenor's participation, as determined by the Commission, if the intervenor's presentation makes a substantial contribution to the Commission's decision and if participation imposes a significant financial hardship.

We carefully review each intervenor's request to determine whether it complies with statutory requirements and related standards and requirements established by the Commission. We do so because the costs of compensation awards are ultimately paid by utility ratepayers. By ensuring that the requirements for awards are met, we provide assurance that ratepayers receive value for the compensation costs that they underwrite.

3.2. Requirements for Intervenors

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

1. 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 (PHC). (§ 1804(a).)

2. The intervenor must be a "customer," i.e., a participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of a utility subject to our jurisdiction, or an authorized representative. (§ 1802(b).)

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

4. The intervenor must demonstrate "significant financial hardship." (§§ 1802(g), 1804(a)(2)(B), 1804(b)(1).)

5. The intervenor's presentation must have made a "substantial contribution" to the proceeding. (§ 1802(i).)

6. The requested compensation must be reasonable. Among other things, the claimed fees and costs must be comparable to the market rates paid to experts and advocates having comparable training and experience and offering similar services. (§ 1806.)

For discussion here, the procedural issues in Items 1-4 are combined, followed by separate discussions on Items 5 and 6.

3.3. Procedural Issues

The PHC in this matter was held on June 21, 2005. Greenlining filed its NOI on June 30, 2005, LIF on July 18, 2005, Disability Rights Advocates on July 20, 2005, and TURN on July 21, 2005. All NOI filings are timely.

Each intervenor is authorized pursuant to its bylaws or articles of incorporation to represent the interests of residential or small commercial customers. We therefore find that each qualifies as a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C).

TURN, Disability Rights Advocates and Greenlining made a showing of financial hardship in their NOIs. LIF made its showing of financial hardship, pursuant to § 1804(a)(2)(B), in its request for compensation. TURN's NOI referred to the showing of financial hardship it made in another proceeding (NOI dated May 20, 2005, filed in Application (A.) 05-02-027). In its NOI, Greenlining showed that it meets the financial hardship condition through a rebuttable presumption of eligibility, pursuant to § 1804(b)(1), because it met this requirement in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding (Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling dated April 8, 2005, in A.04-12-014). We find that TURN, Disability Rights Advocates, Greenlining and LIF all meet the financial hardship condition, pursuant to § 1802(g), as the economic interests of their individual members are small compared to the overall costs of effective participation.

D.05-11-029 was issued on November 23, 2005. Greenlining timely filed its request for compensation on January 18, 2006, LIF on January 20, 2006, and TURN and Disability Rights Advocates on January 23, 2006.²

We find that each intervenor has met all of the procedural requirements necessary to claim compensation in this proceeding. We now separately address each intervenor's showing regarding substantial contribution and the reasonableness of its request.

¹ Subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.

² The 60^th day following issuance of D.05-11-029 was Sunday, January 22; consequently, the TURN and Disability Rights Advocates requests filed on the next business day were timely.