3. Procedural Issues
No PHC was held in this matter but Greenlining and CFC each filed a NOI within a reasonable time after D.06-06-062 amended the OIR's scope and schedule. D.06-06-062, which issued on June 29, 2006, was mailed on July 2, 2006. CFC filed its NOI three days after that mailing, on July 7, 2006. Greenlining filed about a month later, on August 7, 2006. Each intervenor asserted financial hardship.
Section 1802(b)(1) defines a "customer as: (A) a participant representing consumers, customers or subscribers of a utility; (B) a representative who has been authorized by a customer; or (C) a representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential or small business customers.
On July 25, 2006, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Vieth ruled that CFC is a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C), and meets the financial hardship condition through a rebuttable presumption of eligibility, pursuant to § 1804(b)(1), because CFC met this requirement in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding (ALJ Ruling dated May 11, 2006, in R.06-03-004). On September 12, 2006, ALJ Vieth ruled that Greenlining is a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C), and meets the financial hardship condition through a rebuttable presumption of eligibility, pursuant to § 1804(b)(1), because Greenlining met this requirement in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding (ALJ Ruling dated March 7, 2006, in Application 05-12-002).
Greenlining and CFC filed their requests for compensation on February 20, and February 16, 2007, respectively, within 60 days of the issuance of D.06-12-029.1 On February 23, 2007, Greenlining filed an amended request providing additional information and documents. In view of the above, we find that Greenlining and CFC have satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make their requests for compensation in this proceeding.
1 No party opposes either request.
