Friends

One Notice of Intent was served for several parties, each of whom has separate standing as an appearance in this proceeding and is seeking a finding of eligibility. (See January 31, 2000, Ruling Regarding Motions to Intervene.) The Notice was served for Friends of the Eel River, League to Save Sierra Lakes, Golden Gate Audubon Society, El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth, Marin Audubon Society, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Northern Sierra Summer Home Association, Environmental Planning and Information Council of Western El Dorado County, Wiyot Tribe of the Table Bluff Reservation, Coyote (Fred Downey, Ph.D.), and Friends of the Russian River, collectively, Friends.

The Notice is deficient in a number of respects. The first deficiency goes to the determination of whether the Friends are "customers." The second deficiency is in the showing of financial hardship.

Customer Status The Friends state that each will participate as a "representative who has been authorized by a group of customers," but none of the Friends identify in the Notice the customer or customers that authorized the Friends to represent them. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo. p. 30.)

The Notice states that those among the Friends that are organizations will provide Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws under separate cover. It states that Friends of the Eel River, League to Save Sierra Lakes, Golden Gate Audubon Society, El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth, Marin Audubon Society, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Northern Sierra Summer Home Association, Environmental Planning and Information Council of Western El Dorado County, and Friends of the Russian River will provide this documentation. This information should have been provided with the Notice, but only to the extent the organizations are asserting they meet the definition of customer under the third description in the statute: "any representative of a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers ..." Generally, unless the organization includes in its Bylaws or Articles specific reference to representing the interests of residential customers, the documentation is included with argument that states how the organization's Bylaws or Articles can be read to support a finding that the organization meets the statutory definition. Just providing copies of Bylaws or Articles may not provide sufficient information, given the arguments in the Notice.

Further, on this question of customer status, the Notice and the Motion to Intervene give somewhat conflicting information as to the purpose of some of the organizations. Specifically, the Notice states that the organizations are "non-profit membership organizations dedicated to minimizing the environmental and economic costs of generating hydroelectricity on California rivers." But the Motion to Intervene also describes the purposes of the organizations, and much more general purposes were described there. Nowhere there did the organizational Friends state among their purposes minimizing the economic costs of generating hydroelectricity. While it could be convincingly argued that the more narrow purpose described in the Notice falls under the umbrella of the purpose described in the Motion to Intervene for some of these organizations (e.g., Environmental Planning and Information Council of Western El Dorado County), it may be a less direct argument for others (e.g., Northern Sierra Summer Home Association). It is the organizational Friends responsibility to make that argument, and to the extent they claim customer status pursuant to their bylaws or articles of incorporation, to provide that documentation.

In the Notice, the Wiyot Tribe of the Table Bluff Reservation, and Coyote (Fred Downey, Ph.D.), a Native American and representative of the Wailaki Tribe also assert that they qualify as customers under the second description in the statute, "a representative who has been authorized by a group of customers." However, neither identifies the customer or customers that authorized the Wiyot Tribe of the Table Bluff Reservation or Coyote to represent them. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo. p. 30.)

Further, the statutory definition of customer excludes "any state, federal, or local government agency." I understand that the Table Bluff Rancheria of Wiyot Indians is a federally-recognized Native American Tribe, and that the Wailaki Tribe is not federally-recognized at this time.² I understand that federal recognition establishes a government to government relationship between a Tribe and the Federal Government, but that the relationship between Tribes and the State of California may be less well defined. To rule on the Wiyot Tribe's eligibility, I will need argument that clarifies the Tribe's government status given that the statutory definition of customer excludes state, federal, and local governments.

This question of government status also applies to the Wailaki Tribe. However, Coyote, as an individual, may qualify as a customer under the first description in the statute: a participant representing consumers. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo. p. 28.)

Financial Hardship The Friends' financial hardship showing is also insufficient, largely due to the uncertainty surrounding their customer statuses, and the lack of supporting argument and documentation. The Friends are advised that the cannot-afford-to-pay standard applies to a participant representing consumers. The comparison test is applied to groups or organizations authorized pursuant to their bylaws or articles to represent residential consumers. The Commission may apply, on a case-by-case basis, either standard to a representative who has been authorized by a customer or group of customers where there is no bylaws or articles supporting the representation. (See D.98-04-059, mimeo. pp. 36-37.)