3. Procedural Issues
The PHC in this matter was held on April 5, 2005. Felton FLOW timely filed its NOI on May 5, 2005. In its NOI, Felton FLOW asserted financial hardship. On May 20, 2005, Cal-Am filed a response to the NOI urging the Commission to find Felton FLOW ineligible for intervenor compensation because it asserts Felton FLOW will not make a substantial contribution to the proceeding, its participation will be duplicative, and granting intervenor compensation will further burden ratepayers.
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 it articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential or small business customers.
On July 6, 2005, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Walwyn ruled that Felton FLOW is a customer pursuant to § 1802(b)(1)(C), and meets the financial hardship condition, pursuant to § 1804(b)(1), because it met this requirement in another proceeding within one year of the commencement of this proceeding.
Felton FLOW filed its request for compensation on January 29, 2007, within 60 days of D.06-11-050 being issued.2 In view of the above, we find that Felton FLOW has satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make its request for compensation in this proceeding.
2 No party opposes the request.
