ALJ/BWM/hkr Date of Issuance 7/11/2008
Decision 08-07-021 July 10, 2008
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Implementation and Administration of California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. |
Rulemaking 06-05-027 (Filed May 25, 2006) |
DECISION DENYING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION CLAIM
OF SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION
Sustainable Conservation seeks intervenor compensation in the amount of $30,394.50 for contributions to Decision 07-07-027. The claim is denied on the basis that Sustainable Conservation fails to establish significant financial hardship as a Category 1 customer as required by the Public Utilities Code. Sustainable Conservation has made significant contributions to the Commission's work, however, and we welcome its continued participation, as described more below. The proceeding remains open.
1. Background
The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program became law in 2003.1 As a result, each California retail seller must each year procure, with limited exceptions, an increasing minimum quantity of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources until it reaches 20% by 2010 (with an additional goal of reaching 33% by 2020). The procurement is largely via competitive bids or bilateral negotiations. The program was amended in 2006 to require each electrical corporation also to have a tariff for the purchase of RPS-generated electricity from certain customers.2 This proceeding involves implementation and administration of the RPS Program, including implementation of the tariffs.
On October 10, 2006, Sustainable Conservation filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Claim Intervenor Compensation asserting, among other things, it is a customer in Category 3.3 On October 30, 2006, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mattson ruled that Sustainable Conservation had not established its eligibility for intervenor compensation. In particular, the ruling found that Sustainable Conservation had neither established itself as a Category 3 customer nor demonstrated significant financial hardship. The ruling concluded that Sustainable Conservation could further address its eligibility in a subsequent pleading or request for compensation.
On July 26, 2007, we adopted an opinion implementing the required tariffs for the purchase of RPS-generated electricity from certain customers. (Decision (D.) 07-07-027.) On September 24, 2007, Sustainable Conservation filed an Intervenor Compensation Claim, seeking $30,394.50 for substantial contributions to D.07-07-027. The Claim provided further information regarding Sustainable Conservation's eligibility, including support for its assertions of Category 3 customer status and significant financial hardship.
In a related but different RPS proceeding, on August 17, 2007, Sustainable Conservation filed an NOI asserting, among other things, it is a Category 3 customer. (Rulemaking (R.) 06-02-012.) On November 2, 2007, ALJ Simon ruled in R.06-02-012 that Sustainable Conservation had not demonstrated it is a Category 3 customer eligible for intervenor compensation.
On February 21, 2008, in this proceeding, Sustainable Conservation filed an Amended Intervenor Compensation Claim asserting, among other things, it is a Category 1 customer. The Amended Claim states:
"This amendment modifies and supplements the `customer status' claim for Sustainable Conservation. In most other respects...the Claim remains as previously filed. That information is provided again below." (Amended Claim, p. 1.)
The Amended Claim also says the September 24, 2007 Claim "should be deemed superseded and rendered moot." (Id.)
On March 25, 2008, a proposed decision on the Amended Claim was filed. On April 14, 2008, Sustainable Conservation moved to augment the record with a Declaration, including greater detail on its financial position. It also moved for a finding that Sustainable Conservation would incur significant financial hardship if the Amended Claim is denied. The motion is granted with respect to admitting the Declaration with additional financial information. It is denied with regard to finding significant financial hardship, as explained more below.
With this background, we turn to the statutory requirements for receiving intervenor compensation.
1 Senate Bill (SB) 1078, effective January 1, 2003 (Stats. 2002, Ch. 516, Sec. 3), codified as Pub. Util. Code §§ 399.11, et seq., as amended by, among others, SB 107 (Stats. 2006, Ch 464). All subsequent code section references are to the Public Utilities Code unless noted otherwise.
2 Assembly Bill (AB) 1969, effective January 1, 2007 (Stats. 2006, Ch 731) codified as § 399.20.
3 We identify customers as being in Category 1, 2 or 3 based on the categories in the statute. The statute states: " `Customer' means any of the following:
(A) A participant representing consumers, customers or subscribers of any electrical, gas, telephone, telegraph, or water corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of the commission.
(B) A representative who has been authorized by a customer.
(C) A representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential or small commercial customers who receive bundled electric service from an electrical corporation." (§ 1802(b)(1).)
