285624201 -1-

VUK/MFM/ilz 5/1/2019 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop a Successor to Existing Net Energy Metering Tariffs Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 2827.1, and to Address Other Issues Related to Net Energy Metering.

Rulemaking 14-07-002

And Related Matter.

Application 16-07-015

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES’ RULING ON SOLAR CONSUMER

ADVISOR’S SHOWING OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP Party intending to claim intervenor compensation: Solar Consumer Advisor, LLC

Assigned Commissioner: Martha Guzman Aceves

Administrative Law Judges: Mary F. McKenzie and Valerie U. Kao

FILED05/01/1911:55 AM

1 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-2-

PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES (Completed by the party intending to claim intervenor compensation)

A. Status as “customer” (see Pub. Util. Code § 1802(b))1 The party claims “customer” status because the party is (check one):

Applies(check)

1. A Category 1 customer is an actual customer whose self-interest in the proceeding arises primarily from his/her role as a customer of the utility and, at the same time, the customer must represent the broader interests of at least some other customers. See, for example, D.08-07-019 at 5-10).

☐

2. A Category 2 customer is a representative who has been authorized by actual customers to represent them. Category 2 involves a more formal arrangement where a customer or a group of customers selects a more skilled person to represent the customer’s views in a proceeding. A customer or group of customers may also form or authorize a group to represent them, and the group, in turn, may authorize a representative such as an attorney to represent the group.

☐

3. A Category 3 customer is a formally organized group authorized, by its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers or small commercial customers receiving bundled electric service from an electrical corporation (§1802(b)(1)(C)). Certain environmental groups that represent residential customers with concerns for the environment may also qualify as Category 3 customers, even if the above requirement is not specifically met in the articles or bylaws. See D.98-04-059, footnote at 30.

4. The party’s detailed explanation of the selected customer category. SCA’s purpose is to help residential customers of electricity utilities acquire solar in the way that is most beneficial, economically and otherwise, to them. This requires participating in, among other things, regulatory processes and decisions that affect electricity rates, NEM tariffs, solar policies, and solar-consumer protection issues. SCA represents the interests of residential ratepayers only. 

Do you have any direct economic interest in outcomes of the proceeding? 2 If “Yes”, explain: SCA’s income comes from solar shoppers and home buyers and sellers of houses with existing solar systems. To the degree that CPUC’s regulations protect solar consumers better, more consumers are likely to acquire solar systems, and that could increase SCA’s income slightly. On the other hand, were CPUC’s decisions in this proceeding to harm solar homeowners, for example by seriously lowering their NEM credits, this could indirectly reduce the demand for solar and thus slightly reduce SCA’s income. SCA’s economic interests seem aligned with those of the CPUC and the public in protecting them against abuses in the solar marketplace and preserving incentives to acquire solar systems. In any case, since SCA’s income is and will remain small (likely under $10,000 per year), any

Yes

☐ No

                                              1 All statutory references are to California Public Utilities Code unless indicated otherwise. 2 (See Rule 17.1(e).)

2 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-3-

difference in that income due to the outcomes of this proceeding must necessarily be minor. B. Conflict of Interest (§ 1802.3) Check

1. Is the customer a representative of a group representing the interests of small commercial customers who receive bundled electric service from an electrical corporation?

☐Yes No

2. If the answer to the above question is “Yes”, does the customer have a conflict arising from prior representation before the Commission?

☐Yes ☐No

C. Status as an Eligible Local Government Entity (§§1802(d), 1802.4, 1803.1)

C. Timely Filing of Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)(1)):

1. Is the party’s NOI filed within 30 days after a Prehearing Conference? Date of Prehearing Conference: Click here to enter a date.

☐Yes No

2. Is the party’s NOI filed at another time (for example, because no Prehearing Conference was held, the proceeding will take less than 30 days, the schedule did not reasonably allow parties to identify issues within the timeframe normally permitted, or new issues have emerged)?

Yes ☐No

2a. The party’s description of the reasons for filing its NOI at this other time: SCA was not aware of this proceeding at its inception in 2014. Nor was SCA aware of the Intervenor Compensation Program at the time it began to contribute to this proceeding in 2015. It only became aware of this program recently. Since SCA is particularly expert in the residential solar-consumer protection area, and since it cannot afford to help CPUC in this area without compensation, it decided to file an NOI at this time.2b. The party’s information on the proceeding number, date, and decision number for any Commission decision, Commissioner ruling, Administrative Law Judge’s ruling, or other document authorizing the filing of NOI at that other time: Filed within 30 days of Fifth Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner on 12/21/18 for proceeding number 14-07-002. Ruling 3, page 9 states, “Any party wishing to file a new Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation must do so no later than thirty days from the issue date of this Scoping Memo.”

3 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-4-

PART II: SCOPE OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPATION

(Completed by the party intending to claim intervenor compensation)

A. Planned Participation (§ 1804(a)(2)(A)): The party’s statement of the issues on which it plans to participate: Of the 8 issues listed as remaining within the scope of this proceeding in Commissioner Guzman Aceves’ Fifth Amended Scoping Memo of 12/21/18, SCA intends to contribute to the following 3:

1. Consumer Protection. This is the primary focus of SCA’s efforts at present. I intend to address all aspects of this issue, including accurately identifying all the problems in residential solar that consumers have been and continue to be facing, thoroughly describing the details and specifics of these problems, researching and presenting as much data as can be found to document the extent of these problems, analyzing this data and drawing reasonable conclusions from it, researching and presenting a summary of what is currently being done by the legislature, CSLB, CPUC, and other groups to address the problems along with evaluations of their likely effectiveness, researching and reporting on other existing evidence for the existence and severity of these problems, proposing workable, effective solutions to each problem, suggesting practical ways in which these solutions can be implemented, and identifying potential impediments to the suggested solutions. Additionally, identifying and presenting a list of data that presently needs to be collected in order to fully understand the nature, scope, and severity of these problems, along with suggestions on how to acquire this data. Also, a evaluation of the present limitations of the C-46 solar license. These contributions are meant to help CPUC develop its Information Packet for solar consumers, identify additional areas of consumer protection needed, give further consideration to appointing a Consumer Advocate and helpline for solar consumers, evaluate the likely effectiveness of potential solutions to these problems that have already been suggested, and make the Information Packet consistent with and non-overlapping with CSLB’s Disclosure Document for solar consumers. SCA’s position on protecting solar consumers is that it can be done in ways that keep consumers from being preyed upon, while not at all detracting from the rapid and widespread adoption of solar. SCA believes that the lack of consumer protection has so far led to a worsening reputation for residential solar in California and may have contributed to its decline in the last year. Unchecked, this decline in reputation among consumers, realtors, and opinion leaders can only detract from the worthwhile goals of widespread solar adoption. More honest and ethical practices within the solar industry can only be good for solar adoption in even the short term.

2. Implementation of AB 1070, in particular, the requirement for CPUC to “develop standardized inputs and assumptions to be used in the calculation and presentation of electric utility bill savings to a consumer that can be expected by using a solar energy system…” This is a very difficult challenge. SCA believes that neither the authors of the AB 1070 language nor most staff at CPUC understand this fully. Since Dennis Emberling is a mathematician by degree and training, he has already developed a complete process and algorithms to do exactly what AB 1070 has in mind, but restricted to a single utility

4 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-5-

and a small set of equipment models. This process and its algorithms, however, can be a template which can be expanded to cover all utilities and all equipment. SCA intends to offer its expertise to CPUC in meeting this legislative requirement. SCA’s position on this is that specifying inputs and assumptions isn’t nearly enough to meet the goal envisioned by AB 1070. It must also specify the calculations involved to go from these inputs and assumptions to the forecasted savings. In addition, no such calculations can be made until there is first a calculation of annual production of electric energy in kilo-Watt-hours (kWh) for the true life of the system, and this will vary with the exact brands and models of equipment in the system, the location and characteristics of the house the system is installed on, and other factors – all of which will need to be kept up to date. This is the first figure needed to go on to forecast potential savings. Such forecasts of savings will further require automated inputting of historical hourly usage of electricity, as from Green Button Data on utility websites. All this is very tricky and requires intimate knowledge of all the variables that go into such calculations. In SCA’s experience, few people – even solar experts – are fully knowledgeable about these things.

3. NEM-2. Any other work on NEM-2 undertaken in the rest of this proceeding, such as redesigning utility bills to make NBCs (nonbypassable charges) clear to consumers, plus evaluating the true cost of NBCs to consumers with residential solar (SCA has already done this work in the case of SCE customers).

The party’s explanation of how it plans to avoid duplication of effort with other parties:

1. Consumer Protection. Of the current 64 parties to this proceeding, very few, if any have much experience or expertise in the real details of solar-consumer protection problems. Only 28 of these parties represent portions of or all of the public, and 13 of these are attorneys rather than organization staff. Of the remaining 15, 9 were cited in CPUC’s 9/27/18 Decision 18-09-044 as having made some contribution to its consumer protection work. Of these 9, only 4 have much focus on residential solar-consumer protection: GRID Alternatives, which contributed some to the proceeding; IREC, which contributed very little; Greenlining Institute and CLICC, which contributed, but whose focus is limited to low-income consumers. From my study of the proceeding documents and discussions with Energy Division staff and advocacy groups, it appears that CPUC could benefit from contributions from SCA, because it represents residential solar consumers only and is completely independent and unbiased. It has no connections to any other party in the proceeding, to any part of the solar or energy industry, any finance company, any trade group, or any other businesses. It appears that no other party has these qualification or appreciable experience with the problems solar consumers actually encounter in their experiences with solar companies. The comments of other parties suggest that they rely solely on information contained in consumers’ formal complaints, mainly to CPUC or CLSB. Since such complaints represent only a tiny fraction of the consumers who have experienced problems (most solar consumers would never think to file such formal complaints), they are neither comprehensive nor reliably representative of the range and severity of problems consumers face. SCA, on the other hand, has had considerable experience working with solar consumers and talking with industry insiders who are well aware of these problems. SCA is therefore in a position to bring information to the

5 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-6-

proceeding which so far has been lacking. In the terms mentioned in the Intervenor Compensation Program Guide, it would appear that residential solar consumers are “interests that would otherwise be underrepresented in the proceeding.” From the list of parties, it seems that the solar industry, its manufacturers and vendors, utilities, municipalities, farmers, some small businesses, and employees of utilities are all represented by one or more organizations and attorneys. But few of the groups representing part or all of the public have any expertise in solar at all. SCA has had, and intends to continue to have, many discussions with some solar advocacy groups in its efforts to verify the accuracy of the information in its reports and other documents, as well as to help those groups be better informed about solar-consumer protection. Through these ongoing collaborations, SCA will avoid duplicative participation in the proceeding. In fact, to date, it appears that hardly any of SCA’s work on consumer protection has been duplicated by any previous contributions to the proceeding.

2. AB 1070. As described above, SCA is apparently the only party to have worked on the issues surrounding the calculation of energy production and forecasted savings from solar.

3. Other NEM-2 issues. Again, SCA’s ongoing discussions with CPUC Energy Division staff and other advocacy groups will avoid duplicative effort.

The party’s description of the nature and extent of the party’s planned participation in this proceeding (to the extent that it is possible to describe on the date this NOI is filed). SCA intends to participate in every way that is worthwhile to the CPUC in its goals for this proceeding. These include attending workshops and other CPUC meetings in person, filing comments and other pleadings, providing expert testimony, and, if CPUC desires, helping Energy Division, its contractors, and/or IOUs do the following:

1. Design an online calculator for standardized forecasts of annual electrical energy production and electric cost savings for residential solar consumers

2. Design a uniform methodology to categorize and quantify solar complaints

3. Plan ways to collect data on the actual performance of residential solar systems, as well as consumer satisfaction in detail

4. Drafting and improving CPUC’s Information Packet for solar consumers

5. Ensure that the Information Packet is clear to laypeople and not overly technical

6. Any other work CPUC would like help with in connection with this proceeding.

7. SCA will be guided by CPUC staff as to what work is worthwhile for it to do. It does not intend to waste any time or CPUC funding on work that does not meaningfully and directly contribute to CPUC’s goals in this proceeding.

6 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-7-

B. The party’s itemized estimate of the compensation that the party expects to request, based on the anticipated duration of the proceeding (§ 1804(a)(2)(A)):

Item Hours Rate $ Total $ #

ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Dennis Emberling, expert research, mathematical modeling, financial and other analysis, evaluation, reporting, consultation,in-person participation,

200 $445 $89,000 1

[Expert 2] [Advocate 1]

Subtotal: $89,000

OTHER FEES[Person 1]

Subtotal: $0

COSTSTravel to attend CPUC events $900 2 [Item 2]

Subtotal: $900 TOTAL ESTIMATE: $89,900

Numbered Comments:

1. A very rough estimate, based on doing many of the things listed in Section II A. above. Again, SCA intends to contribute to the proceeding in a worthwhile way, not duplicate the work of others, provide irrelevant information to CPUC, or waste CPUC’s funds.

2. Travel expenses per trip, not including travel time at ½ hourly rate. Estimated Budget by Issues:

1. Approximately 80% of this work is expected to be on issue #1 above (Consumer Protection).

2. The work on issue #2 above (the calculator) is likely to be preliminary only, since CPUC has planned to issue an RFP to engage a contractor to design the calculator. It is possible that SCA will either be such a contractor or work with the chosen contractor on this project, so only 15% of the total work.

3. SCA’s contributions to issue #3 (other NEM-2 issues) is likely to be only about 5% of the total work

Notes: This estimate does not include claim preparation time. I’ve never done it, so I don’t know how long it might take.

SCA has not and does not expect to receive any grant or other support from any sources other than CPUC for participation in this proceeding. Nor will SCA include any time or charges for any clerical or administrative work in connection with its participation in the proceeding.

7 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-8-

PART III: SHOWING OF SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP

(Completed by party intending to claim intervenor compensation)

A. The party claims that participation or intervention in this proceeding without an award of fees or costs imposes a significant financialhardship, on the following basis:

Applies(check)

1. The customer cannot afford, without undue hardship, to pay the costs of effective participation, including advocate’s fees, expert witness fees, and other reasonable costs of participation. (§ 1802(h))

☐

2. 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. (§ 1802(h))

3. The eligible local government entities’ participation or intervention without an award of fees or costs imposes a significant financial hardship. (§ 1803.1(b).)

☐

4. A § 1802(h) or § 1803.1(b) finding of significant financial hardship in another proceeding, made within one year prior to the commencement of this proceeding, created a rebuttable presumption in this proceeding (§ 1804(b)(1)). Commission’s finding of significant financial hardship made in proceeding number: Date of Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling (or CPUC Decision) in which the finding of significant financial hardship was made:

☐

B. The party’s explanation of the factual basis for its claim of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(h) or § 1803.1(b)) (necessary documentation, if warranted, is attached to the NOI: I, Dennis Emberling, on behalf of SCA, hereby certify that the economic interest of the individual members of SCA is small in comparison to the costs of effective participation in the proceeding. As can be seen in the attached SCA bylaws (Operating Agreement) and Articles of Organization, SCA has only one member (effectively the only person who benefits economically from SCA): Dennis Emberling. SCA’s income comes from solar shoppers and home buyers and sellers of houses with existing solar systems. To the degree that CPUC’s regulations protect solar consumers better, more consumers are likely to acquire solar systems, and that could increase SCA’s income slightly. On the other hand, were CPUC’s decisions in this proceeding to harm solar homeowners, for example by seriously lowering their NEM credits, this could indirectly reduce the demand for solar and thus slightly reduce SCA’s income. Since SCA’s income is and will remain small (likely under $10,000 per year – the attached 2017 tax return shows $8,475 gross revenues), any difference in that income due to the outcomes of this proceeding could not be more than a few thousand dollars per year. But, as estimated above, SCA’s work on the proceeding could

8 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-9-

take hundreds of hours. At any rate in CPUC’s Table 2, this would dwarf any minor difference in SCA’s income as a result of the outcome of the proceeding. As further explanation, Dennis Emberling is 74 years old and semi-retired, living primarily on social security income. SCA is a part-time job for him – mostly a labor of love – and helping CPUC protect residential solar consumers is a worthy cause to which he is committed, regardless of compensation.

PART IV: ATTACHMENTS DOCUMENTING SPECIFIC

ASSERTIONS MADE IN THIS NOTICE (The party intending to claim intervenor compensation identifies and attaches documents)

Attachment No. Description

1 Certificate of Service2 3 4

SCA Articles of Organization SCA Operating Agreement (bylaws) SCA 2017 Federal Income Tax Return

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RULING3

1. The Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation (NOI) filed by Solar Consumer Advisor, LLC (SCA) has not demonstrated the party’s status as a “customer” for the following reason(s):

a. The NOI does not comply with the requirements of Section 1802(b)(1)(C) regarding articles of incorporation and bylaws

SCA asserts its status as an eligible organization pursuant to Section1802(b)(1)(C), as

… a group or organization authorized pursuant to its articles of incorporation or bylaws to represent the interests of residential customers, or to represent small commercial customers who receive bundled electric service from an electrical corporation.

Pursuant to Section 1802(b)(1)(C) eligibility for compensation must be verified by

presenting the articles of incorporation and/or bylaws.4 As a limited liability company,

                                              3 A Ruling needs not be issued unless: (a) the NOI is deficient; (b) the Administrative Law Judge desires to address specific issues raised by the NOI (to point out similar positions, areas of potential duplication in showings, unrealistic expectations for compensation, or other matters that may affect the customer or eligible local government entity’s Intervenor Compensation Claim); or (c) the NOI has included a claim of “significant financial hardship” that requires a finding under § 1802(h). 4 See also, Rule 17.1(d) of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure.

9 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-10-

Solar Consumer Advisor, LLC cannot present either of these documents. The statute

does not include in the list of the required documents operating agreements. However,

even if we accepted as a valid customer status verification a copy of the Solar Consumer

Advisor, LLC’s operating agreement,5 there are other barriers to this company’s

eligibility to claim compensation.

b. Companies representing conflicting interests and interests that do not have financial barriers to a participation in our proceedings are not eligible.

The purpose of the Intervenor Compensation Program is expressed in Section 1801.3:

…(b) The provisions of this article shall be administered in a manner that encourages the effective and efficient participation of all groups that have a stake in the public utility regulation process.

In its seminal decision on the Intervenor Compensation Program policies, the

Commission explains:

The intervenor compensation program is intended to encourage the participation of all customers in Commission proceedings by helping them overcome the cost barriers to effective and efficient participation. …[W]e must qualify this statement to reflect the intent of the statute that only those particular customer interests that would otherwise be underrepresented. (See Section 1801.3(f)). D98-04-059 at 26.

In the underrepresented customers’ class, the statute has included residential and small

commercial utility customers, pursuant to Section 1802(b)(1)(C).6 For-profit entities

operating in the Commission-regulated markets have not been recognized as

“customers.”7

As a matter of the Intervenor Compensation Program’s governing purpose, the

Commission has denied compensation to those interests that do not need incentive in the

form of intervenor compensation to advocate in front of the Commission and therefore

                                              5 These documents were attached to Solar Consumer Advisor, LLC’s NOI. 6 “Targets of concern include residential customers… and small business customers who cannot afford to take time away from day-to-day operations to invest time and money in PUC proceedings which will ultimately result in dispersed benefits.” (Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission’s Intervenor Compensation Program and Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission’s Intervenor Compensation Program (Rulemaking (R.) 97-01-009; Investigation (I.) 97-01-010); 1997 Cal. PUC LEXIS 60, *69. 7 See, for example, D.00-04-026 or D.88-12-034.

10 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-11-

are not underrepresented. Even where an intervenor represents a combination of eligible

and ineligible interests, intervenor compensation has been denied:

The intervenor compensation program should be implemented in a manner that ensures customer interests are represented by entities free from conflicts that may arise in representing two interests, the competitor’s as a competitor and the ratepayers’ as customers (either residential or business) (D.00-04-026, Ca. PUC LEXIS 203, *19.)

In D.93-11-020, the Commission denied compensation to a group representing

conflicting interests. In the center of the discussion was CEERT, a 501(c)(3) organization

with membership consisting of renewable energy companies and environmental groups.

The decision determined that the broad goals of CEERT furthered the interests of the

renewable energy companies-members (D.93-11-020, 1993 Cal. PUC LEXIS 854, *4-6;

52 CPUC 2d 97), and denied compensation.

SCA claims that it is a “Category 3 customer” pursuant to Section 1802(b)(1)(C) or an

organization whose purpose is to “help residential customers of electricity utilities

acquire solar in the way that is most beneficial … to them.” One of the intervenor’s

purposes is, according to the Operating Agreement, to “represent residential customers of

electricity utilities in legislative, regulatory, and enforcement work to protect them in

shopping for, acquiring, and their own operating residential solar systems,” and

“participating in formal and informal procedures … to promote solar-consumer

protection.” Assuming we were to validate SCA’s operating agreement for the purposes

of Section 1802(b)(1)(C), these provisions would constitute a reasonably inferable

authority to advocate residential ratepayers’ interest. However, besides these provisions,

there is nothing in the purposes, sources of income, and goals of SCA, that would

distinguish it from a small business participating in the renewable energy markets as a

commercial consultant on solar products and services.

SCA’s Motion for Party Status filed concurrently with the NOI states:

SCA is a for-profit limited liability company, all of whose clients are residents of or companies doing business within California. … For the past five years, Dennis Emberling and SCA have provided solar consulting services to California homeowners shopping for rooftop solar. These services are free to the solar shopper, but if the shopper requests a referral to a reliable dealer/installer, SCA

11 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-12-

will put the shopper in touch with a dealer SCA has thoroughly checked out and qualified. If the shopper ends up acquiring a system from that dealer, that dealer pays SCA a $500 referral fee. In addition to this service, for the last two years, SCA has provided a Solar Evaluation Service to realtors, home buyers, and home sellers of homes with existing solar. This service costs $275 and is paid for by the buyer, seller, or realtor who requests the service and receives its report. SCA’s two services are directly involved in many of the issues taken up in Rulemaking 14-07-002, including Net Metering Tariffs, utility bill formats and disclosures, and the entire range of consumer-protection issues…8

According to this information, SCA acts more like an intermediary between solar

consumers and the solar industry and market, occupying a niche created by the

competing supply and demand in the renewable energy markets. Therefore, SCA, as a

provider of the services that benefit both the competitors in solar market (manufacturers,

dealers, and installers) and the solar consumers, represents at most, conflicting interests

of the solar consumers and the renewable energy market’s participants, and does not

solely represent the interests of solar consumers. As stated, above, the Commission is

precluded from compensating conflicting interests.

In addition, as a provider of the solar consulting services, SCA has an economic interest

in our proceedings directly connected with SCA’s for-profit business goals. SCA’s only

source of income are referral fees paid by the solar dealers/installers and solar evaluation

service fees paid by the sellers, buyers and realtors. SCA’s participation in our

proceeding may further these business goals. A prospect of the business profit as a result

of SCA’s participation in our proceeding indicates that in order to participate, SCA may

not need an additional incentive in the form of intervenor compensation.

The Commission has denied compensation to a consulting company asserting eligibility

as a “customer” and operating in the energy market. The Commission explained

consequences of the broad interpretation of the Intervenor Compensation Program:

We do not understand the intervenor compensation statutes to encompass … a broad definition of customer. ... We believe that an interpretation granting customer status to anyone offering a competing service would make the customer status test illusory. The mere assertion that customers would be better off if they

                                              8 Motion for Party Status of Solar Consumer Advisor, LLC filed on January 9, 2019, at 2-3.

12 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-13-

had competitive alternatives would confer customer status. (D.00-04-026; 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 203, *18-19.)

SCA’s income is directly contingent on the interests competing in the solar energy

industry and market. With these considerations, we find the SCA has not demonstrated

its status as a Category 3 customer.

2. The NOI has not demonstrated significant financial hardship for the following reason(s):

The statute describes two elements of eligibility: customer status and significant

financial hardship. An eligible Category 3 customer must advocate underrepresented

interests and have the authority, stated in its articles or bylaws, to represent these

interests in front of the Commission. The second element of eligibility, significant

financial hardship, is also premised upon the interests advanced by organizations

claiming eligibility pursuant to Section 1802(b)(1)(C). For them, significant financial

hardship means that “the economic interest of the individual members of the group or

organization is small in comparison to the costs of effective participation.” In the case of

CEERT the Commission explained:

Our intervenor compensation program targets those situations in which an important aspect of the public good might be overlooked because the persons most interested in that aspect would not otherwise have the financial incentive to participate. The issue here, in a mixed membership group such as CEERT, is whether the financial stake of the energy developer members constitutes a sufficient incentive for CEERT to participate … absent an expectation of compensation. If the answer is yes, it is irrelevant that other CEERT members have a small economic interest relative to the cost of effective participation.9

We note that a mere potential for CEERT’s members to receive economic benefits was

sufficient for the Commission to make this finding.

For groups and organizations, significant financial hardship means that 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” (Section 1802(h). The NOI

explains that SCA has only one member (the only person who benefits economically

from SCA): Dennis Emberling. The only source of SCA’s income are referral fees paid

                                              9 D.93-11-020, 1993 Cal. PUC LEXIS 854, *4-5;

13 / 14

R.14-07-002, A.16-07-015 ALJ/VUK/MFM/ilz

-14-

by the solar installers and/or dealers and costs of solar evaluation service paid by SCA’s

clients – homeowners, homebuyers, and realtors. Dennis Emberling does not participate

in this proceeding as an individual utility customer and would not be eligible for

intervenor compensation as an individual utility customer. His interest in participating in

this proceeding is based on the specific character of his services in the Commission-

regulated market. This interest is different from the interest of residential utility

customers, whose interest is covered by the Intervenor Compensation Program. The

issues considered in this proceeding are directly relevant to SCA and Dennis Emberling’s

profits from SCA. We find that SCA may not need an additional incentive in the form of

intervenor compensation, to participate in this proceeding. SCA has not demonstrated

significant financial hardship.

2. The Administrative Law Judge provides the following additional guidance (see § 1804(b)(2)):

This ruling does not preclude SCA from participating, at its own costs, in this

proceeding.

IT IS RULED that:

1. The Notice of Intent to Claim Intervenor Compensation filed by Solar Consumer Advisor, LLC is rejected.

Dated May 1, 2019, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ VALERIE U. KAO /s/ MARY F. MCKENZIE Valerie U. Kao

Administrative Law Judge Mary F. McKenzie

Administrative Law Judge

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

14 / 14