4. NOI to Claim Compensation and Finding of Eligibility

Intervenors timely filed a NOI. Intervenors did not include a showing of significant financial hardship in the NOI. The NOI was addressed in an Administrative Law Judge Ruling dated July 7, 1998. The Ruling indicates that Intervenors are to provide a showing of financial hardship in any future request for compensation. The Ruling also directs Intervenors to identify the class of customer status they assert under Section 1802(b), and the percentage of each Intervenor's membership which is composed of residential customers.

Intervenors assert that they qualify for customer status under Section 1802(b) as "a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of

incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers." The bylaws of both Intervenors are attached as Exhibit A to the Request. Both groups are authorized in their bylaws to represent the interests of low-income, minority and residential ratepayers. Latino Issues Forum estimates that it represents 90 percent residential customers, and 10 percent small business customers. The Greenlining Institute estimates that its percentage of residential customers is 80 percent, and the percentage of small businesses is 20 percent. Based upon the information provided by Intervenors, we find that Intervenors qualify for the customer class asserted.

Section 1802(g) defines the requisite showing of "significant financial hardship" for a group or organization authorized by its bylaws to represent residential customers. For this class of customer, significant financial hardship is shown if the economic interest of the individual members of the group or organization is small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in the proceeding. (The applicability of this standard was reaffirmed by the Commission in D.98-04-059, at pages 34-35.) Intervenors further claim financial hardship on another theory, but we do not discuss that theory because, as we discuss below, the economic interest standard is met.

Applying the standard for a showing of significant financial hardship defined in Section 1802(g) we conclude that the potential economic interest of Intervenors' members in this proceeding is small compared to the costs of participation. In addition to the $3.2 million penalty imposed in 1993 and paid by GTEC, this decision requires GTEC to pay $4.85 million to a Telecommunications Consumer Protection Fund, and $100,000 to the Commission fiscal office as reimbursement of Commission costs. An additional $4.85 million is to be paid to the General Fund of the State of California. It appears that Intervenors' members will not receive any direct economic benefit from the settlement. Any direct economic benefit for individual consumers would be small compared to the cost of participation in this proceeding. Accordingly, we find that Intervenors have each made a showing of significant financial hardship within the meaning of the statute. We note that based upon a similar showing, both Intervenors were found eligible for an award of compensation in D.98-12-058.