II. Background

SDC filed a motion with the Commission on May 18, 1999 seeking permission to late-file its notice of intent (NOI) to claim intervenor compensation in accordance with § 1801 and following. SDC's motion was granted in the July 1, 1999 ALJ ruling. That ruling also directed SDC or its President, Smith, to file an amended NOI. The original NOI that was attached to SDC's motion failed to describe the customer category that applied to SDC or Smith, and did not explain how SDC or Smith met the § 1802(b) definition of a "customer" as required by Decision (D.) 98-04-059.

On July 20, 1999, SDC and Smith filed an amended NOI entitled "Solar Development Cooperative/Smith's Amended Motion Of Notice Of Intent To Claim Compensation."² In the October 13, 1999 ALJ ruling, it was ruled that SDC and Smith were ineligible to claim intervenor compensation because neither one of them qualified under the three categories of customer as set forth in § 1802(b).

On October 28, 1999, SDC filed its "Appeal and Protest of Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Dated October 13, 1999 Regarding Notice of Intent To Claim Compensation" (Appeal). In accordance with Rule 65 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the assigned ALJ referred SDC's Appeal to the Commission for action. (November 1, 1999 ALJ Ruling, pp. 2-3.) No one filed any response to SDC's Appeal.

The draft decision of the assigned ALJ was mailed to the parties in accordance with § 311(g) on February 23, 2000. No comments to the draft decision were filed.