2. Requirements for Awards of Compensation

Intervenors who seek compensation for their contributions in Commission proceedings must file requests for compensation pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-12. (Unless otherwise noted, all statutory citations are to the Public Utilities Code.)

A. Notice of Intent

Section 1804(a) requires an intervenor to file a notice of intent (NOI) to claim compensation within 30 days after the prehearing conference (PHC) or by a date established by the Commission. The NOI must present information regarding the nature and extent of the customer's planned participation and an itemized estimate of the compensation the customer expects to request. The NOI may request a finding of eligibility.

1. Timeliness of NOI

SSRC filed a timely NOI on July 20, 2001. An Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling dated August 9, 2001 found SSRC eligible to claim compensation in this proceeding.

2. Financial Hardship

SDG&E raises a novel issue related to SSRC's financial hardship - a prerequisite to receiving compensation. Section 1802(g) defines financial hardship as a state in which the customer cannot afford, without undue hardship, to pay the cost of effective participation. For a group or organization, Section 1802(g) defines financial hardship as a state in which "the economic interest of the individual members of the group or organization is small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in this proceeding." ALJ Cooke found that SSRC had satisfied the financial hardship test in her ruling on SSRC's NOI.

SDG&E claims that SSRC received more than $300,000 in private donations and further financial backing from the Pechanga Development Corporation (Pechanga), another party to the proceeding. It questions whether SSRC truly needs the compensation in view of these contributions.

While SSRC refutes the amounts and sources of its contributions to some extent, it does not dispute that it received substantial private donations. This fact raises a question of first impression before this Commission. If an organization is formed for the sole purpose of intervening in a particular Commission proceeding, and then disbands, should we consider private donations the organization raises in determining whether the organization meets the financial hardship standard? This is an extremely narrow circumstance: most intervenors before the Commission are not formed solely to participate in a single proceeding, and use both private donations and intervenor compensation in their ongoing work on multiple Commission proceedings. However, if SSRC disbands, having already received donations to cover some or all of its expenses, is it appropriate that it receive intervenor compensation that may not be channeled into future work on Commission proceedings?

SSRC focuses on the statutory language relevant to group participation, which requires that the economic interest of the individual members of the group be small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in the proceeding. ALJ Cooke's NOI ruling found this standard met because "SSRC's members are residential customers whose interests in this proceeding are small relative to the costs of participation and the cost of SSRC's participation in Commission proceedings substantially outweighs the benefit to any individual customer it represents."² Similarly, ALJ Gottstein rejected SDG&E's identical argument regarding SSRC: "Nor does SDG&E cite any authority for the proposition that we should consider SSRC's fundraising capabilities in determining financial hardship. This proposition fails . . . . "

SDG&E provides no authority demonstrating that we cannot issue an award to a group that meets the statutory test but that also has a demonstrated ability to raise other funding. We suspect that many groups that appear before us and receive intervenor compensation also have fundraising capabilities. While we believe there is some cause for concern in this case - where we are awarding funding after the fact to a group that may already have been able to raise funds to cover its costs and shows no plans to remain in business for future efforts - we do not see any way around the statutory requirements.

SDG&E has provided no evidence refuting ALJ Cooke's finding that SSRC's residential customer members have interests that are small relative to the costs of participation. Nor has it made any argument that we may look to a different financial hardship test for SSRC than we use for other groups and organizations. Therefore, we do not find that SSRC's fundraising ability is relevant to a determination of its financial hardship or other eligibility for intervenor compensation. We affirm that SSRC has met the financial hardship requirement.

B. Timeliness of Compensation Request

Section 1804(c) requires an eligible customer to file a request for an award within 60 days of issuance of a final order or decision by the Commission in the proceeding. The Commission issued D.02-12-066 on December 24, 2002. SSRC timely filed its request for an award of compensation on February 24, 2003.