BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking into Distributed Generation.

Rulemaking 99-10-025
(Filed October 21, 1999)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RULING
REGARDING NOTICES OF INTENT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION

I.	Summary
This ruling responds to the notices of intent to claim compensation (NOIs) that were separately filed in this docket by the Utility Reform Network (TURN),  Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet), Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN), Latino Issues Forum and the Greenlining Institute (jointly LIF), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).  This ruling addresses the requirements of the Pub. Util. Code, Article 5, § 1804.  All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code.  After consultation with the assigned Commissioner, I find that TURN, Aglet, UCAN, LIF, and NRDC are eligible for compensation in this proceeding. 
All parties who intend to seek intervenor compensation should ensure that each party’s efforts should not duplicate the efforts of other parties with similar interests.  Such duplication of effort may result in a reduction of the amount of compensation ultimately awarded.  I note that there is some duplication in the areas of focus between intervenors based on their NOIs.  Parties requesting compensation should discuss amongst themselves and the Commission staff the issues each will address.  Merely appearing, stating position, and cross-examining will not assure compensation.
II.	Background
Under § 1804(a)(1), “[a] customer who intends to seek an award under this article shall, within 30 days after the prehearing conference is held, file and serve on all parties to the proceeding a notice of intent to claim compensation.”  The prehearing conference in this proceeding was held on December 1, 1999.  NOIs filed by TURN, Aglet, UCAN, LIF, and NRDC are timely filed.
Section 1804(a)(2) sets forth those items that must be addressed in an NOI.  Pursuant to Decision (D.) 98-04-059, this ruling must determine whether the intervenor is a customer, as defined in § 1802(b) and identify whether the intervenor is a participant representing consumers, or a representative authorized by a customer, or a representative of a group or organization that is authorized by its bylaws or articles of incorporation to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.  If the customer category identified is “a representative authorized by a customer,” the NOI should identify “the residential customer or customers that authorized him to represent that customer.”  That identification is needed because this category of customer “connotes a more formal arrangement where a customer, or a group of customers, selects a presumably more skilled person to represent the customers’ views in a proceeding.”  (D.98-04-059, pp. 28‑30.)  Participation in Commission proceedings by parties representing the full range of affected interests is important.  Such participation assists the Commission in ensuring that the record is fully developed and that each customer group receives adequate representation.
Once the applicable definition of customer is identified, the correct standard of “significant financial hardship” can be applied.  Only those customers for whom participation or intervention would impose a significant financial hardship may receive intervenor compensation.  Section 1804(a)(2)(B) allows the customer to include a showing of significant financial hardship in the NOI.  Alternatively, the required showing may be made in the request for award of compensation. Section 1802(g) defines “significant financial hardship.”
“Significant financial  hardship” means either that the customer cannot without undue hardship afford to pay the costs of effective participation, including advocate’s fees, expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of participation, or that, in the case of a group or organization, the economic interest of the individual members of the group or organization is small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in the proceeding.
III.	The Utility Reform Network
TURN meets the third definition of customer, as set forth in § 1802(b), thus, the comparison standard applies.  TURN is organized to represent and advocate the interests of consumers of public utility services in California.  TURN qualifies as a customer because it is an organization that is authorized by its articles of incorporation to represent the interests of consumers, a portion of whom we have determined to be residential customers.  While the Commission’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) represents and must balance the interests of all ratepayers, TURN states that it represents the specific interests of small customers.  TURN indicates that it will tailor its participation to ensure that its “work serves to support and complement the work of other parties that share [its] positions, and avoid any undue duplication wherever practicable.”  (NOI, p. 2.) 
A rebuttable presumption of eligibility exists for TURN.  A finding of significant financial hardship was determined in an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling issued on January 4, 1999 in Application (A.) 98-09-003, et al.  This proceeding commenced within one year of this finding.  Therefore, in accordance with § 1804(b)(1), the rebuttable presumption created in A.98-09-003 et al. is applicable.  
The economic interests of TURN’s individual members are small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in Commission proceedings.  In addition, the cost of TURN’s participation in Commission proceedings substantially outweighs the benefit to an individual customer it represents. TURN’s members are small residential customers whose individual interests in this proceeding are small relative to the costs of participation.  TURN has made a showing of significant financial hardship in this proceeding.  A finding of significant financial hardship in no way ensures compensation (§ 1804(b)(2)).
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(i) requires NOIs to include a statement of the nature and extent of the customer’s planned participation in the proceeding to the extent this can be predicted.  TURN expects to conduct discovery, prepare testimony, cross-examine witnesses, and file briefs and comments, as required.  TURN plans to focus on deployment of distributed generation as an alternative to transmission or distribution infrastructure and the ratemaking implications of proposals presented to the Commission. 
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that NOIs include an itemized estimate of the compensation the customer expects to receive.  The scope of the proceeding had not been established at the time the NOI was filed.  However, at that time, TURN estimated a total projected budget of $33,850 for this case, based on proposed hourly rates which will be addressed in its Request for Compensation.
IV.	Aglet Consumer Alliance
Aglet meets the third definition of customer, as defined in § 1802(b), thus, the comparison standard applies.  Aglet is an unincorporated nonprofit association, registered with the State of California Secretary of State.  Aglet is organized to represent and advocate the interests of residential and small commercial customers of electric, gas, water, and telephone utilities in California. Aglet represents the specific interests of small customers.  Aglet expects that its participation will support and complement, but not duplicate the showings of ORA, TURN, and other parties. 
A rebuttable presumption of eligibility exists for Aglet.  A finding of significant financial hardship was determined in an ALJ Ruling issued on June 18, 1999 in A.99-03-014.  This proceeding commenced within one year of this finding.  Therefore, in accordance with § 1804(b)(1), the rebuttable presumption created in A.99-03-014 is applicable.  
The economic interests of Aglet’s individual members are small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in Commission proceedings.  In addition, the cost of Aglet’s participation in Commission proceedings substantially outweighs the benefit to an individual customer it represents. Aglet’s members are small residential customers whose individual interests in this proceeding are small relative to the costs of participation.  Aglet has made a showing of significant financial hardship in this proceeding.  A finding of significant financial hardship in no way ensures compensation (§ 1804(b)(2)).
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(i) requires NOIs to include a statement of the nature and extent of the customer’s planned participation in the proceeding to the extent this can be predicted.  Aglet plans to participate actively by conducting discovery, preparing and serving testimony, testifying, cross-examining witnesses, and filing briefs and comments, as required.  The NOI does not indicate the topics on which Aglet will focus.  Aglet should amend its NOI no later than 20 days after the scoping memo is issued to identify the subjects it intends to focus on.
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that NOIs include an itemized estimate of the compensation the customer expects to receive.  The scope of the proceeding had not been established at the time the NOI was filed.  However, at that time, Aglet estimated a total projected budget of $22,150 for this case, based on proposed hourly rates which will be addressed in its Request for Compensation.
V.	Utility Consumers’ Action Network
UCAN meets the third definition of customer, as set forth in § 1802(b), thus, the comparison standard applies.  UCAN is organized to represent and advocate the interests of ratepayers of San Diego Gas & Electric Company. UCAN qualifies as a customer because it is an organization that is authorized by its articles of incorporation to represent the interests of ratepayers, a portion of whom we have determined to be residential customers.  While the Commission’s ORA represents and must balance the interests of all ratepayers, UCAN states that it represents the specific interests of small customers.  UCAN indicates that it will tailor its participation to ensure that its “work serves to support and complement the work of other parties that share [its] positions, and avoid any undue duplication wherever practicable.” (NOI, p. 3.) 
A rebuttable presumption of eligibility exists for UCAN.  A finding of significant financial hardship was determined in an ALJ Ruling issued on April 20, 1999 in R.98-12-015, et al.  This proceeding commenced within one year of this finding.  Therefore, in accordance with § 1804(b)(1), the rebuttable presumption created in R.98-12-015 is applicable.  
The economic interests of UCAN’s individual members are small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in Commission proceedings.  In addition, the cost of UCAN’s participation in Commission proceedings substantially outweighs the benefit to an individual customer it represents. UCAN’s members are small residential customers whose individual interests in this proceeding are small relative to the costs of participation. UCAN has made a showing of significant financial hardship in this proceeding.  A finding of significant financial hardship in no way ensures compensation (§ 1804(b)(2)).
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(i) requires NOIs to include a statement of the nature and extent of the customer’s planned participation in the proceeding to the extent this can be predicted. UCAN expects to conduct discovery, prepare testimony, participate in hearings, and file briefs and comments, as required.  UCAN plans to focus on potential barriers to use of distributed generation by small customers. 
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that NOIs include an itemized estimate of the compensation the customer expects to receive.  The scope of the proceeding had not been established at the time the NOI was filed.  UCAN requests the opportunity to amend its NOI no later than 60 days after the scoping memo is issued in order to reflect an estimate of its budget.  UCAN should amend its NOI to reflect an estimate of its budget no later than 20 days after the scoping memo is issued.
VI.	Latino Issues Forum/Greenlining Institute
LIF meets the last definition of customer, as defined in § 1802(b), thus, the comparison standard applies.  Both Latino Issues Forum and Greenlining Institute are 501(c)(3) organizations authorized by their bylaws to represent, among others, low-income communities and residential ratepayers before regulatory agencies and courts.  The interests that LIF represents, specifically low-income, minority and limited-English speaking communities, are frequently underrepresented in Commission proceedings. 
LIF has elected to defer a showing of significant financial hardship to its request for compensation. 
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(i) requires NOIs to include a statement of the nature and extent of the customer’s planned participation in the proceeding to the extent this can be predicted.  LIF plans to participate by preparing and serving testimony, testifying, cross-examining witnesses, and filing briefs and comments, as required.  LIF plans to focus its participation on funding for public purpose programs, educating communities about distributed generation, accessibility of distributed generation to all communities, consumer protection, and system reliability/safety provisions.
Section 1804(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires that NOIs include an itemized estimate of the compensation the customer expects to receive.  The scope of the proceeding had not been established at the time the NOI was filed.  However, at that time, LIF estimated a total projected budget of $94,425 for this case, based on proposed hourly rates which will be addressed in its Request for Compensation.
IT IS RULED that:
1.		The Utility Reform Network (TURN) has met the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util. Code) § 1804(a), including the requirement that it establish significant financial hardship, and TURN is found eligible for compensation in this proceeding.
2.		TURN is a customer as that term is defined in § 1802(b) and is a group or organization that is authorized to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.
3.		Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet) has met the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code § 1804(a), including the requirement that it establish significant financial hardship, and Aglet is found eligible for compensation in this proceeding.
4.		Aglet is a customer as that term is defined in § 1802(b) and is a group or organization that is authorized by its bylaws or articles of incorporation to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.
5.		Aglet shall amend its notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) no later than 20 days after the scoping memo is issued to identify the issues it intends to focus on.
6.		Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN) has met the eligibility requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 1804(a), including the requirement that it establish significant financial hardship, and UCAN is found eligible for compensation in this proceeding. 
7.		UCAN is a customer as that term is defined in § 1802(b) and is a group or organization that is authorized to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.
8.		UCAN shall amend its NOI no later than 20 days after the scoping memo is issued to reflect an estimate of its budget.
9.		 Latino Issues Forum is a customer as that term is defined in § 1802(b) and is a group or organization that is authorized by its bylaws or articles of incorporation to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.
10.		Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has met the eligibility requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 1804(a), including the requirement that it establish significant financial hardship, and NRDC is found eligible for compensation in this proceeding.
11.		NRDC is a customer as that term is defined in § 1802(b) and is a group or organization that is authorized to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.
Dated January 20, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

Michelle Cooke
Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Regarding Notices of Intent to Claim Compensation on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.
Dated January 20, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

Antonina V. Swansen

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA  94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.