Opinion ID: 2515684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission Was Within Its Discretion To Deny AECA Permissive Intervention.

Text: AECA asserts that it meets the permissive intervention criteria set out in 3 AAC 48.110(a) and (b). Specifically, AECA claims that: (1) it has a direct interest in the tariff's interpretation and application; (2) any Commission ruling concerning the tariff will impact it and its members; (3) only through intervention can it protect its interests; (4) no other party can represent its unique interest or present its unique perspective; (5) its institutional knowledge about development of § 2.6 of the tariff will assist in developing a complete record; and (6) far from intending to broaden the issue or delay proceedings, it already had timely filed testimony and agreed to an expedited procedural schedule. Our inquiry is limited to whether the Commission's application of the permissive intervention factors to the facts of this case was arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion. [38] Although the Commission's initial ruling was limited to analogizing this case to Docket U-99-81, in denying reconsideration the Commission explicitly stated that AECA failed to satisfy the second, sixth, and seventh permissive intervention factors. It found AECA's claimed interest in the interpretation and application of its tariff was insufficient, and although its members' property or financial interests may qualify them for intervention, AECA as an organization has not demonstrated such a property or financial interest. Additionally, the Commission found AECA's institutional knowledge about adoption of § 2.6 of the tariff would not assist in developing a sound record and intervention on the part of AECA to provide this institutional knowledge may delay the proceeding. Those findings are not clearly erroneous, and based on those findings, the Commission reasonably denied AECA's petition to intervene.