III. 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.

SSRC received a finding of eligibility in both this proceeding and in Investigation (I.) 00-11-001 and was awarded compensation in D.02-05-005 and D.03-10-056. Because SDG&E continues to raise issues about SSRC's customer status and financial hardship, we review the standards and findings the ALJ made regarding SSRC's eligibility.

1. Timeliness of NOI

SSRC filed a timely NOI on July 20, 2001. An ALJ ruling dated August 9, 2001 found SSRC eligible to claim compensation in this proceeding.

2. Customer Status

The assigned ALJ found that SSRC qualified as a "customer" under Section 1802(b). Section 1802(b) defines the term "customer" as:

[A]ny participant representing consumers, customers, or subscribers of any electrical, gas, telephone, telegraph, or water corporation that is subject to the jurisdiction of the commission; any representative who has been authorized by a customer; or any representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers. . . .

Thus, there are three categories of customers: (1) a participant representing consumers; (2) a representative authorized by a customer; and (3) a representative of a group or organization authorized in its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers. The Commission requires a participant to specifically identify in its NOI how it meets the definition of customer and, if it is a group or organization, provide a copy of its articles or bylaws, noting where in the document the authorization to represent residential ratepayers can be found.¹

The ALJ found that according to SSRC's NOI, "SSRC represents residential utility customers concerned about the impacts of overhead transmission lines, including impacts on public health and safety and on property values and scenic quality in the region. SSRC's interests in the proceeding are in discouraging unnecessary and damaging transmission facilities and in promoting alternatives that are cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and consistent with community values." The ALJ found that all of SSRC's Directors live in communities in southwest Riverside County and are residential utility customers, and that two of its Directors are also small business customers. The ALJ noted that, "SSRC expects that residential utility customers will continue to constitute nearly all of its membership."

The ALJ also noted that on May 21, 2001, SSRC was found eligible to claim compensation in Investigation 00-11-001 as a Category 3 customer. SSRC is an unincorporated nonprofit association registered with the State of California Secretary of State and is authorized pursuant to its bylaws to represent and advocate the interests of customers of electric utilities in southwest Riverside County. SSRC attached a copy of its bylaws to its NOI.

Thus, the ALJ found that SSRC's interests in this proceeding arise directly from its representation of customers and clearly qualify as customer interests. We affirm that SSRC's showing is adequate to establish its status as a Category 3 customer.

3. Financial Hardship

Second, the assigned ALJ found in ruling on SSRC's NOI that the organization had established financial hardship. The ALJ found that SSRC's members are residential customers whose individual interests in this proceeding are small relative to the costs of participation and that the cost of SSRC's participation in Commission proceedings substantially outweighs the benefit to any individual customer it represents. The ALJ also found that no economic benefit from participation inures because SSRC's interest in the proceeding is in maintaining the status quo.

In opposing SSRC's request in its NOI for a finding of financial hardship, SDG&E incorporated by reference its objections to SSRC's claim of financial hardship raised in I.00-11-001.² SSRC made a showing of significant financial hardship in I.00-11-001 (ALJ Ruling of May 21, 2001). This proceeding commenced within one year of the date of that finding, so the ALJ here found that the rebuttable presumption applies in this case.

In addition, the ALJ for this proceeding found that that the potential financial gain to individual SSRC members from participation in this proceeding is small:

Because SSRC is opposing the construction of a transmission line through Southwest Riverside County, it is essentially advocating for the status quo, and thus, there will be limited tangible benefits. Consistent with Commission precedent, in this and related proceedings, SSRC must demonstrate not only that the transmission line it opposes should be rejected but that there are other viable alternatives to addressing SDG&E's energy need. SSRC intends to retain experts to study and evaluate the transmission and environmental impacts of both the proposed transmission line and alternative projects. Thus, SSRC's participation also has a broader environmental and societal interest that is not easily further monetized. SSRC's participation also benefits a wide range of customers.

The assigned ALJ concluded that SSRC had satisfied the showing of significant financial hardship.

SDG&E raises a novel issue in response to SSRC's request for compensation. As noted above, the assigned ALJ found that SSRC had satisfied the financial hardship test in ruling on SSRC's NOI. SDG&E claims that SSRC received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to stop SDG&E's Project. 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. In a declaration filed in support of its first request for compensation, the President of SSRC, Barbara Wilder, clarified the nature of those donations:

SSRC did not receive financial contributions from the City of Temecula, the City of Hemet, the City of Murrieta, or any other governmental entities. SSRC did not receive financial contributions from the Pechanga Development Corporation . . . .

SSRC raised money to pay its legal bills and other costs and expenses by holding fundraisers and collecting donations from residents and homeowners associations. SSRC's contributions were primarily in the form of many, small contributions from private residents and larger contributions by homeowners associations in southwest Riverside County.³

SDG&E characterizes SSRC's receipt of private donations as a question of first impression before this Commission. This is incorrect. Intervenors commonly raise private donations (often through membership dues) to fund their participation while awaiting a decision on intervenor compensation in their work in Commission proceedings.

In responding to SDG&E, 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. The 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."⁴ Similarly, in I.00-11-001 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 the assigned ALJ'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.03-05-038 on May 8, 2003 and
D.03-06-030 on June 5, 2003. With regard to both decisions, SSRC timely filed its request for an award of compensation on July 3, 2003.