III. Position of SDC

We note that SDC's Appeal contains many extraneous references and materials that do not pertain to the issue that confronts us.³ The sole issue before us is whether the October 13, 1999 ALJ ruling regarding the eligibility of SDC and Smith to claim intervenor compensation should be affirmed. Accordingly, only those portions of the Appeal that directly address this issue are relevant to today's decision.

SDC states that in its amended NOI, SDC/Smith met all of the customer categories for the purposes of the intervenor compensation statutes, and that its Appeal contains more evidence to substantiate this. SDC seeks a determination as to whether a customer must have an electricity bill in the customer's name. SDC asserts that if one is required to have an electricity bill in one's name, such a requirement discriminates against those citizens who indirectly benefit from electricity but do not have an electricity bill. SDC contends that the:

"Evidence, statutes and related caselaw does not specifically indicate that an Intervenor must have an electricity bill in their name to be classified as a `customer' whether representing its own interests or whether `its position `represents' the interests of customers."

SDC also asserts that there needs to be a clear set of rules about the intervenor compensation rules in a brochure with applicable case law. SDC contends that this will allow potential participants to decide whether to intervene, and whether they will qualify for intervenor compensation.

SDC also contends that "Smith represents SDC as an executive of this small solar energy company." (Appeal, p. 6.) In addition, SDC contends that SDC/Smith represents all consumers affected by the role of the UDCs in distributed generation, including residential ratepayers, small commercial, corporate clients, and utility distribution companies. In support of SDC's assertion that SDC/Smith represents residential ratepayers, two letters were attached to the Appeal. The letters are dated January 25, 1994 and February 24, 1997. SDC also asserts that Smith's resume, which was attached to the Appeal, "clearly illustrates the significant papers SDC/Smith has written as an international advocate and representative for residential consumers...." (Appeal, p. 8.) SDC also cites to several other articles in which SDC contends that SDC/Smith were acting on behalf of residential customers. (See Appeal, pp. 8-10.)

SDC also asserts that it is a "for-profit cooperative" and that "Small business mission statements could be adequately compared to non-profit corporation by-laws." (Appeal, pp. 19-20.)

SDC's Appeal also states that:

"If Intevenor Compensation laws are not working, too vague or venerable [sic] to manipulation in interpretation, then they need to be referred to Committee and restructured to meet the goals and realities of the emerging competitive electric industry." (Appeal, p. 12.)

In addition, SDC questions the practice of paying intervenor compensation to non-profit organizations claiming hardship, when "they demand $100 to $350 an hour fees for expert testimony" and for legal fees. SDC also raises the issue of standardized compensation and an up-front payment to intervenors.

SDC also asserts that the basic costs of participation should be awarded even if an intervenor's input is not substantially reflected in a Commission decision, and that all citizens should be allowed to intervene in a Commission proceeding.

SDC also states at p. 2 of its Appeal that:

"The Commission alleges the issues we have raised are not the type of antitrust issues they address. Please clarify."

Furthermore, SDC states at pp. 18 to 22 that consumer education should include a discussion about distributed generation and self-generation technology as a choice in the competitive electricity market.