2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation
The intervenor compensation program set forth in California Public Utilities Code Sections 1801-1812,2 requires California jurisdictional utilities to pay the reasonable costs of an intervenor's participation if that party makes a substantial contribution to the Commission's proceedings. The statute provides that the utility may adjust its rates to collect the amount awarded from its ratepayers.
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 to claim (NOI) compensation within 30 days of the prehearing conference (PHC), pursuant to Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), or at another appropriate time that we specify. (§ 1804(a).)
2. The intervenor must be a customer or a participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of a utility subject to our jurisdiction. (§ 1802(b).)
3. The intervenor must file and serve a request for a compensation award within 60 days of our final order or decision in a hearing or proceeding. (§ 1804(c).)
4. The intervenor must demonstrate "significant financial hardship." (§§ 1802(g) and 1804(b)(1).)
5. The intervenor's presentation must have made a "substantial contribution" to the proceeding, through the adoption, in whole or in part, of the intervenor's contention or recommendations by a Commission order or decision or as otherwise found by the Commission. (§§ 1802(i) and 1803(a).)
6. The claimed fees and costs must be reasonable (§ 1801), necessary for and related to the substantial contribution (D.98-04-059), comparable to the market rates paid to others with comparable training and experience (§ 1806), and productive (D.98-04-059).
In the discussion below, the procedural issues in Items 1-4 above are combined and a separate discussion of Items 5-6 follows.
2.1. Requirements for Award of Compensation for Participation in Program Advisory Group
Since details of the PRG's activities are protected by confidentiality agreements, the Commission needs from intervenors certain non-confidential information to make the findings required by §§ 1801-1812. D.07-11-024 clarified that intervenors requesting compensation for participation in Program Advisory Groups (PAGs) are required to indicate types of programs, policies, practices or documents reviewed in connection with their work and how that work contributed to an outcome that benefited ratepayers. The intervenors should also explain how their unique analysis, perspective or work product or specific expertise or skills added value to the review or advisory process.3
2.2. Preliminary Procedural Issues
Under § 1804(a)(1) and Rule 17.1(a)(1), a customer who intends to seek an award of intervenor compensation must file an NOI before certain dates. In a proceeding in which a PHC is held, the intervenor must file and serve its NOI in the period of time between the date the proceeding was initiated and the 30th day after the PHC is held. (Rule 17.1(a)(1).) NRDC timely filed its NOI on March 28, 2007, following the February 27, 2007 PHC.
In its NOI, NRDC asserted that its customer status falls within the § 1802(b)(1)(C) definition (a representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential or small business customers). NRDC also asserted significant financial hardship through a rebuttable presumption pursuant to § 1804(b)(1). Most recently, NRDC received a finding of significant financial hardship in a ruling issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Weissman in Application (A.) 07-01-024 et al. dated April 3, 2007. Because this proceeding commenced on April 13, 2006, under § 1804(b)(1) the rebuttable presumption applies to this case.
In D.08-06-018 granting NRDC's request for compensation related to the earlier stages of this proceeding, we confirmed NRDC's customer status and accepted its showing of significant financial hardship. We reaffirm those findings.
D.08-07-047 was mailed on July 31, 2008. On September 30, 2008, NRDC filed its request for an award of compensation for substantial contribution to D.08-07-047. The timing of the request was in compliance with §1804(c) since the request was filed within 60 days of the date of issuance of D.08-07-047. On October 3, 2008, to reflect newly awarded hourly rates for NRDC's representatives, it filed an amended request. No party opposed the requests.
We find that NRDC has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to request compensation as described in the subject request.
2 All subsequent statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
3 D.07-11-024, at 5-6.
