3. Preliminary Procedural Issues

Under § 1804(a)(1) and Rule 17.1(a)(1), a customer who intends to seek an award of intervenor compensation must file an NOI before certain dates. In a proceeding in which a PHC is held, the intervenor must file and serve its NOI between the date the proceeding was initiated until 30 days after the PHC is held. (Rule 17.1(a)(1).) The PHC in this matter was held on March 7, 2007.

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.  (§ 1802(b)(1)(A) through (C).)

3.1. Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA)

On April 6, 2007, DisabRA timely filed its NOI in this proceeding. On May 10, 2007, the ALJ issued a ruling that found DisabRA a customer pursuant to § 1802(b) and that it meets the financial hardship condition pursuant to § 1802(g). DisabRA timely filed its request for compensation on February 22, 2008, within 60 days of D.07-12-051 issuance. No party opposed DisabRA's request.

3.2. Greenlining Institute (Greenlining)

On March 19, 2007, Greenlining timely filed its NOI in this proceeding. On May 10, 2007, the ALJ issued a ruling that found Greenlining a customer pursuant to § 1802(b). Greenlining refers to a finding of significant hardship in a decision issued on May 25, 2007, in D.06-08-030/R.05-04-005. Because that decision was issued within the past year, that prior finding of financial hardship regarding Greenlining applies to Greenlining's participation in this proceeding pursuant to § 1804(b)(1).

Greenlining timely filed its request for compensation on February 22, 2008, within 60 days of D.07-12-051 issuance (December 24, 2007). SCE opposes Greenlining's request as excessive. However, SCE does not controvert Greenlining's assertion that it has complied with the preliminary procedural requirements here.

3.3. A World Institute of Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H.)

On April 4, 2007,⁸ A W.I.S.H. timely filed its NOI in this proceeding. On May 10, 2007, the ALJ issued a ruling that found A W.I.S.H. was a customer pursuant to § 1802(b). In its NOI, A W.I.S.H. expressly elected to show its financial hardship in its request, instead of its NOI. A W.I.S.H., in its request, refers to a finding of significant hardship in a decision issued on January 14, 2008, D.07-11-045, granting its request for intervenor compensation for substantial contribution to that decision. Because that decision was issued within the past year, that prior finding of financial hardship regarding A W.I.S.H. applies to A W.I.S.H.'s participation in this proceeding pursuant to § 1804(b)(1).

A W.I.S.H. timely filed its request for compensation on February 19, 2008, within 60 days of D.07-12-051 issuance. SCE opposes A W.I.S.H.'s request. However, SCE does not controvert A W.I.S.H.'s assertion that it has complied with the procedural requirements for the request here.

3.4. Summary

In view of the above, we affirm the ALJ's May 10, 2007 ruling and find that DisabRA, Greenlining, and A W.I.S.H. have satisfied all the procedural requirements necessary to make their respective request for compensation in this proceeding.

⁸ On April 10, 2007, A W.I.S.H. filed an Errata to its previously filed NOI.