Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): Protestants 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in Incorrect. The assigned constitute "a cross proceeding number: A.10-11-009 rejected the Protestants’ NOI at the section of Santa July 8, 2010 PHC in C.09-12-006 Catalina Island (TR 16:1-12). No subsequent Water Operations rulings were issued in C.09-12-006 customers including or A.10-11-009 finding Protestants the City of Avalon, to be eligible customers, pursuant to the Chamber of § 1802(b). Part I(C), CPUC’s See Commerce, Catalina Additional Comments and Island's principal Discussion on Part I(B)(5-8). land owners and condominium associations, and campgrounds." (Decision, p. 1) "Protestants represent the interests of the various classes of ratepayers." (Decision, p. 9) Incorrect. The assigned judge 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 10/16/2014 rejected the Protestants’ NOI at the July 8, 2010 PHC in C.09-12-006 (TR 16:1-12). No subsequent rulings were issued in C.09-12-006 or finding Protestants to be eligible customers, pursuant to § 1802(b). October 16, 2014 is the issue date of Decision (D.) 14-10-048, which resolved A.10-11-009. D.14-10-048 does not address any intervenor compensation matters. Part See I(C), CPUC’s Additional Comments and Discussion on Part I(B)(5-8). 7. on another CPUC Part I(C), CPUC’s Additional See determination (specify): Comments and Discussion on Part I(B)(5-8). 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or No. At the July 8, 2010 PHC in related status? C.09-12-006, the assigned judge rejected Protestants’ NOI as unreasonable and excessive (TR
Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: A.10-11-009 Protestants constitute "a cross section of Santa Catalina Island Water Operations customers including the City of Avalon, the Chamber of Commerce, Catalina Island's principal land owners and condominium associations, and campgrounds." (Decision, p. 1) "Protestants represent the interests of the various classes of ratepayers." (Decision, p. 9) Incorrect. The assigned rejected the Protestants’ NOI at the July 8, 2010 PHC in C.09-12-006 (TR 16:1-12). No subsequent rulings were issued in C.09-12-006 or A.10-11-009 finding Protestants to be eligible customers, pursuant to § 1802(b). See Part I(C), CPUC’s Additional Comments and Discussion on Part I(B)(5-8). 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 10/16/2014 Incorrect. The assigned judge rejected the Protestants’ NOI at the July 8, 2010 PHC in C.09-12-006 (TR 16:1-12). No subsequent rulings were issued in C.09-12-006 or finding Protestants to be eligible customers, pursuant to § 1802(b). October 16, 2014 is the issue date of Decision (D.) 14-10-048, which resolved A.10-11-009. D.14-10-048 does not address any intervenor compensation matters. See Part I(C), CPUC’s Additional Comments and Discussion on Part I(B)(5-8). 7. on another CPUC determination (specify): See Part I(C), CPUC’s Additional Comments and Discussion on Part I(B)(5-8). 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or status? No. At the July 8, 2010 PHC in C.09-12-006, the assigned judge rejected Protestants’ NOI as unreasonable and excessive (TR related
171262202.docx