5. Comments on Proposed Decision
In intervenor compensation matters, Rule 14.6(c)(6) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that we may reduce or waive the otherwise applicable 30-day period during which parties may file comments and reply comments on a proposed decision. We declined to reduce or waive the comment period, and allowed the normal 30-day period here on the March 25, 2008 proposed decision of ALJ Mattson.
On March 25, 2008, the proposed decision of ALJ Mattson was filed and served for comment. On April 14, 2008, comments were filed by Sustainable Conservation. No reply comments were filed. Consistent with our rules, we consider comments that focus on factual, legal or technical errors and which, in citing such errors, make specific references to the record. We give no weight to comments which merely reargue positions already taken. (Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.)
In its April 14, 2008 comments, Sustainable Conservation asks for "the same limited period of time to provide any further specific information that the Commission has granted to other similarly situated parties." (Comments, p. 1, emphasis in original.) In support, Sustainable Conservation cites an April 3, 2008 Ruling in Application (A.) 07-11-011 wherein four groups6 were told they may amend their NOI within 15 days of the date of the ruling to perfect their showing on customer category and significant financial hardship.7 (April 3, 2008 Ruling, Ordering Paragraph 2.)
Sustainable Conservation had the same opportunity here. By ruling dated October 30, 2006, several comments were offered regarding Sustainable Conservation's customer status and financial hardship (see October 30, 2006 Ruling, pp. 5-9), and Sustainable Conservation was given not 15 days but an unlimited amount of time to perfect its showing (in either a subsequent pleading or request for compensation). Sustainable Conservation utilized this opportunity and filed a claim on September 24, 2007, an amended claim on February 21, 2008 and a motion on April 14, 2008. Sustainable Conservation has had more than 15 days, and has taken several opportunities, to perfect its claim.
Sustainable Conservation says it has tried diligently to establish eligibility, but that the Commission has provided little guidance. It asks for a reasonable time to provide any further specific information the Commission may request.
There is no specific information we request. The responsibility to establish eligibility is that of the intervenor. Sustainable Conservation has the same information available to it as all potential intervenors (e.g., access to the Public Utilities Code and Commission decisions). The Commission considers each NOI and claim on its own merits. We do so in the context of balancing sometimes competing interests and goals. For example, we must balance (a) encouraging "effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility process" (§ 1801.3(b)) with (b) ensuring that ratepayers are not required to pay for an intervention until the intervenor meets all statutory requirements (e.g., customer status, significant financial hardship, substantial contribution, avoidance of unproductive and unnecessary participation). We do that here.
As we said recently, we say again here:
"We regret ever having to deny an intervenor compensation for legitimate work in our proceedings. We are mindful, however, that the objective of the intervenor compensation program is to promote and reward effective ratepayer advocacy, and to do so in a way that is efficient and fair to the ratepayers who support the program's costs. We therefore must deny compensation to individuals or groups that do not satisfy the program's requirements." (D.07-06-023, p. 9.)
On May 20, 2008, the revised proposed decision of ALJ Mattson was filed and served for comment. Comments were taken on the revised proposed decision because it addressed new information allowed into the record via the April 14, 2008 Declaration. Pursuant to Rule 14.6(c)(6), the comment period was shortened to 3 days. No comments were filed.
6 The four groups are Sierra Club, CALPIRG, Environment California Research & Policy Center, and California Church Impact.
7 The April 3, 2008 ruling in A.07-11-011 does not state specific questions or specific items for the four groups to address.
