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 NOTICE TO CLAIM COMPENSATION

Summary
This ruling responds to the notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) filed in this docket by Solar Development Cooperative (SDC).  This ruling addresses the requirements of the Public Utilities Code, Article 5, Section 1804.  All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code.  After consultation with the assigned Commissioner, I find that SDC does not meet the definition of customer and is not eligible for intervenor compensation in this proceeding.
Background
Under Section 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.  The NOI filed by SDC is 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 Section 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.
Solar Development Cooperative
SDC explains in its NOI that it meets all three definitions of customer set forth in the statute.  SDC states that it represents Colonel Richard T. Headrick, a “customer of the CPUC” (NOI, p. 6) and a client of SDC, and therefore is a representative authorized by a customer.  As explained in D.86-05-007, this category consists of representatives who have been authorized by actual customers to represent them.  SDC’s NOI does not identify whether Colonel Headrick is a utility customer nor does it include any evidence that he has authorized SDC to participate in this proceeding on his behalf.  Therefore, SDC does not qualify as a representative authorized by a customer.
SDC states that it is “an organization authorized pursuant to its mission statement to represent the interests of residential and small to mid-size [distributed generation] customers assuring their right to ready access and reliable service for [building-integrated photovoltaic distributed generation] technologies.”  (NOI, p. 7.)  SDC did not attach copies of its bylaws or articles of incorporation to its NOI but did include a link to its website.  SDC’s website states that it is a “for-profit cooperative [whose] mission is to accelerate timely mainstream deployment of Building-Integrated Photovltaics.”  This mission statement is different than described in SDC’s NOI and does not describe its purpose as representing the interests of residential ratepayers.  SDC does not qualify as a group or organization that is authorized by its bylaws or articles of incorporation to represent the interests of residential ratepayers.
SDC states that it is a customer who seeks to own and use a building‑integrated photovoltaics system to supply energy to a residence and business facility and therefore is a representative of customers.  It also states that it represents future utility customers that will live in a SDC demonstration facility.  As summarized by the Commission in D.98-04-059 (at p. 28), this category of customer refers to “an actual customer who represents more than his own narrow self‑interest; a self-appointed representative” of at least some other consumers, customers, or subscribers of the utility.  (Id.)  SDC does not provide any information in its NOI that it is a customer of a utility.
A review of SDC’s website reveals that SDC is a for-profit cooperative whose purpose is to accelerate deployment of building-integrated photovoltaics.  Its website identifies it as the exclusive marketing agent of the Headrick Solar-Voltaic Dome™ (a rooftop photovoltaic system) and provides details for the various consulting services it offers to promote building-integrated photovoltaics.
SDC’s NOI does not address its private business interest in the outcome of this proceeding.  A review of SDC’s product offerings makes clear that the outcome of this proceeding may have an impact on its business prospects.  Although SDC’s positions may coincide with current or future customers, SDC has a private business interest in the outcome of this proceeding because of its for-profit status and business offerings.  We have previously rejected the argument that a representative of business customers should be allowed to obtain compensation for its efforts to improve, through the regulatory process, its business prospects under the auspices of representing a customer.  (D.98‑04‑059, mimeo., p. 29, fn. 14.)  
I also find discussion in D.88-12-034 on point in considering SDC’s standing as a customer.  In D.88-12-034, the Commission addressed a request for eligibility for The Extension Connection, Inc.  (TEC), an independent company that provided inside wiring services in competition with Pacific Bell (Pacific). D.88-12-034 considered the question of whether TEC was a customer for purposes of intervenor compensation.  In that decision we observed that TEC’s self-interest in the proceeding arose due to its existence as a competitor rather than as a customer of Pacific.  We concluded as follows:
“Following TEC’s reasoning to an extreme, any participant in our proceedings, regardless of the genesis of its self-interest, could argue that its position “represents” the interests of customers.  If coincidence with customers’ interests is the primary criterion for establishing “representation,” such an argument would likely prevail in any instance where the Commission ultimately adopts the participant’s position as reasonable and in the public interest.  We believe that an interpretation of “representation” more narrow than a mere coincidence of interest is appropriate.”  (D.88-12-034.)
Based on SDC’s NOI, I conclude that SDC does not qualify as a representative of customers for purposes of intervenor compensation.  SDC’s private interest in achieving accelerated deployment of building‑integrated photovoltaics may coincide with the interests of some future utility customers.  However, this coincidence of interest is insufficient to qualify SDC as a customer in this proceeding.  SDC is a firm which sells its services to building industry clients and this proceeding will result in new rules and policies regarding interconnection, rate design, and ownership for distributed generation technologies.  SDC has a business self-interest in this proceeding, so its participation does not arise directly from its interests as a customer.  SDC’s business self-interest precludes its participation as a customer.
SDC may offer a unique perspective and expertise among participants in this proceeding, however, this does not in and of itself entitle SDC to customer status for purposes of eligibility for intervenor compensation.  Because SDC does not qualify as a customer, it is not eligible to receive an award of intervenor compensation.  Because SDC does not qualify as a customer, I do not make a finding regarding significant financial hardship.
Therefore, IT IS RULED that Solar Development Cooperative is not a customer as that term is defined in Section 1802(b) and therefore is not eligible for an award of intervenor compensation in this proceeding.
Dated January 28, 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 Notice of Intent to Claim Compensation on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.
Dated January 28, 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.