3. Procedural Issues

TURN filed its request for compensation on November 30, 2004, within the required 60 days of the issuance of D.04-09-063. TURN states that the following rulings cover the time period of this proceeding and all find that TURN is a customer suffering significant financial hardship, thus creating a rebuttable presumption, as allowed by § 1804(b)(1), of eligibility for compensation:

ALJ	Proceeding	Date of Ruling
Barnett	A.00-09-002	December 29, 2000
Barnett	A.01-09-003	December 19, 2001
Bemesderfer	A.02-07-050	March 25, 2003
Wetzell	R.04-04-003	July 27, 2004

We find the TURN has timely filed its request for compensation and that it meets the customer and significant financial hardship conditions.

Whether TURN's NOI is timely, however, requires further analysis. Section 1804 sets the general requirement that NOIs should be filed and served within 30 days of the prehearing conference.³ The statute also states "the Commission may determine the procedure to be used in filing" NOI requests where the specific procedural sequence of a proceeding does not neatly fit within the statute. The Commission has further interpreted this section in Rule 76.76 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules), which holds that customers found eligible for compensation in one phase of a multi-phase proceeding remain eligible for compensation in later phases.

The purpose of the NOI, per § 1804, is to apprise other parties of the intervenor's planned extent of participation, likely costs, and intention to seek reimbursement via the intervenor compensation program. In response to an NOI, the assigned ALJ is required to issue a ruling pointing out any apparent issues that might affect the intervenor's ultimate claim for compensation, see § 1804(b)(2). The NOI thus allows the parties, the ALJ, and the prospective claimant to be aware of the planned intervenor compensation request and to ensure compliance with program requirements.

Here, the OANAD proceeding (initiated in 1993) set UNE prices and provided a mechanism for systematically reviewing and adjusting those prices. TURN was an active participant in OANAD, receiving three awards of intervenor compensation, and continued its participation in the UNE Reexamination. We conclude, consistent with Rule 76.76, TURN should remain eligible for compensation in the later UNE Reexamination. TURN's participation in these closely related proceedings achieved the purposes of the NOI because all other parties, and the assigned ALJ, were aware of TURN's active participation and requests for compensation in the earlier stages, and thus would have expected the pattern to continue. No party objects to TURN's request for compensation or motion to late-file its NOI.

In conclusion, we find that TURN has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation.