Party Reason for Opposition CPUC Disposition Channel Channel Islands Telephone Company (CITC) on The Commission does not find Islands April 22, 2014 filed a response to Wishtoyo CITC’s Response persuasive. Telephone claim for intervenor issues with Foundation’s (Wishtoyo) CITC’s Wishtoyo’s Company compensation. In the Response, CITC alleges customer status were addressed in that Wishtoyo is not eligible for intervenor the December 17, 2013 Ruling on compensation because it is not a NOI. With regards to “customer” Wishtoyo’s under Pub. Utils. Code Section 1802(b). CITC the argument that Wishtoyo is not also claims that Wishtoyo did not make a an as laid “environmental group” substantial contribution, as its participation was out by D. 09-04-059, there is no duplicative of its participation in a separate but requirement that environmental related proceeding. organizations represent affected ratepayers in each particular case. There is also no requirement that an environmental organization’s participation must also have a linkage to rates. D. 98-04-059 states that environmental organizations customers “represent who have a concern for the environment which distinguishes their interests from the interests represented by Commission staff, for Wishtoyo has example.” Here, environmental interests distinct from those of any other participant in the proceeding, and such interests are worthy of compensation if properly represented. With regards to allegations that Wishtoyo did not make a substantial contribution to this decision, all hours and documents being here compensated are attributable to this decision. Dated time records provided by Wishtoyo match the timeline for submittal of documents related to this proceeding. All such documents are related to this proceeding. Whether such documents may have arguments similar to those presented by Wishtoyo in a separate proceeding
Party Reason for Opposition CPUC Disposition Channel Islands Telephone Company Channel Islands Telephone Company (CITC) on April 22, 2014 filed a response to Wishtoyo Foundation’s (Wishtoyo) claim for intervenor compensation. In the Response, CITC alleges that Wishtoyo is not eligible for intervenor compensation because it is not a “customer” under Pub. Utils. Code Section 1802(b). CITC also claims that Wishtoyo did not make a substantial contribution, as its participation was duplicative of its participation in a separate but related proceeding. The Commission does not find CITC’s Response persuasive. CITC’s issues with Wishtoyo’s customer status were addressed in the December 17, 2013 Ruling on Wishtoyo’s NOI. With regards to the argument that Wishtoyo is not an “environmental group” as laid out by D. 09-04-059, there is no requirement that environmental organizations represent affected ratepayers in each particular case. There is also no requirement that an environmental organization’s participation must also have a linkage to rates. D. 98-04-059 states that environmental organizations “represent customers who have a concern for the environment which distinguishes their interests from the interests represented by Commission staff, for example.” Here, Wishtoyo has environmental interests distinct from those of any other participant in the proceeding, and such interests are worthy of compensation if properly represented. With regards to allegations that Wishtoyo did not make a substantial contribution to this decision, all hours and documents being here compensated are attributable to this decision. Dated time records provided by Wishtoyo match the timeline for submittal of documents related to this proceeding. All such documents are related to this proceeding. Whether such documents may have arguments similar to those presented by Wishtoyo in a separate proceeding
205218047.docx