4. NOI To Claim Compensation

TURN, PA, and GL/LIF timely filed NOIs after the first PHC. By a ruling dated April 1, 1999 (Eligibility Ruling), the assigned ALJ found each to be a customer as defined in Section 1802(b). The Eligibility Ruling also found that TURN and PA demonstrated significant financial hardship (as defined in Section 1802(g) in their NOI filings. The Eligibility Ruling also required that GL/LIF include a showing of significant financial hardship in the request for compensation.

In response, GL/LIF referred to hardship showings they made in other proceedings regarding the relevant time period. Specifically, in D.00-04-011, the Commission found that GL/LIF met the test based on documentation provided on December 23, 1999, in Rulemaking (R.) 98-12-015. For purposes of this proceeding we will apply this finding of significant financial hardship.

In the Eligibility Ruling, both PA and GL/LIF were put on notice that their estimated budgets appeared potentially excessive. PA estimated total fees and costs of $323,400. (The amount sought in the Request is $325,649.) GL/LIF estimated their budget to be $301,500. (The amount sought in the Request is $323,276.50, and an additional $642.72 is claimed in the Errata.)⁴

The statutory standard directs the Commission to administer the intervenor compensation program in a manner that avoids unproductive or unnecessary participation that duplicates the participation of similar interests otherwise adequately represented or participation that is not necessary for a fair determination of the proceeding. (§ 1801.3(f).) The Eligibility Ruling put all intervenors on notice that to the extent their efforts in the proceeding duplicate the efforts of other parties, they are at risk for receiving reduced or no compensation for such efforts. All intervenors were directed to address the issues of underrepresentation, fair determination and duplication in their subsequent requests for compensation.