Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812: Intervenor CPUC Verified Timely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): Correct. 1. Date of Prehearing 4/16/2015 Conference: 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed: 5/15/2015 Correct. Yes. 4. Was the NOI timely filed? Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): A rebuttable presumption of eligibility established in 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued R.10-05-006 in proceeding number: R.10-05-006 has expired (Section 1804(b)). See CPUC’s comment in item 10, below. In addition, Section 1804(b) only creates a rebuttable presumption with regards to significant financial hardship. 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 7/19/2011 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility established in R.10-05-006 has expired (Section 1804(b)). See CPUC’s comment in item 10, below. In addition, Section 1804(b) only creates a rebuttable presumption with regards to significant financial hardship. 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer No; see, comments in Part I(C). CPUC’s or customer-related status? Showing of financial (§ 1802(g)): “significant hardship” 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued R.10-05-006 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility stemming from in proceeding number: the July 19, 2011 ruling issued in R.10-05-006 has expired (§1804(b)) (see discussion in item 10, CPUC’s below). 10. Date of ALJ ruling: 7/19/2011 Under §1804(b), a rebuttable presumption of eligibility is only valid within a year after a finding of eligibility in another proceeding. This proceeding started more than 3 years after the ruling of July 19, 2011 issued. Therefore, the reference to the ruling is invalid.
Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812: Intervenor CPUC Verified Timely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)): 1. Date of Prehearing Conference: 4/16/2015 Correct. 2. Other specified date for NOI: 3. Date NOI filed: 5/15/2015 Correct. 4. Was the NOI timely filed? Yes. Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)): 5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.10-05-006 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility established in R.10-05-006 has expired (Section 1804(b)). See CPUC’s comment in item 10, below. In addition, Section 1804(b) only creates a rebuttable presumption with regards to significant financial hardship. 6. Date of ALJ ruling: 7/19/2011 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility established in R.10-05-006 has expired (Section 1804(b)). See CPUC’s comment in item 10, below. In addition, Section 1804(b) only creates a rebuttable presumption with regards to significant financial hardship. 7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify): 8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status? No; see, CPUC’s comments in Part I(C). Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)): 9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: R.10-05-006 A rebuttable presumption of eligibility stemming from the July 19, 2011 ruling issued in R.10-05-006 has expired (§1804(b)) (see CPUC’s discussion in item 10, below). 10. Date of ALJ ruling: 7/19/2011 Under §1804(b), a rebuttable presumption of eligibility is only valid within a year after a finding of eligibility in another proceeding. This proceeding started more than 3 years after the ruling of July 19, 2011 issued. Therefore, the reference to the ruling is invalid.
230593646.docx