20210504Petition for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney atLaw
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17ft St.
Boise,lD. 83702
[phone] (Land)
(208) 484-ee80 (Cell)
[e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
r,,l- \:t-i,l'!!,'l-:i
,:i:-; i:i,Y -i{ P}l 5,03
. ::l:L .. ,' 'r.:L-
-: i I ::.i '",'. il,i r'i iJ..\lr\Llu:u)t\,,lt{
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF SUEZ WATER IDAHO
INC.'S APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY
TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES
FOR WATER SERVICE IN IDAHO
PRUDENTLY INCURRED.
CASE NO. SUZ.W-20-02
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION
OF IDAHO'S PETITION
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
I. INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Community Action Partrrership Association of Idatro (CAPAI) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code $ 6l-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165, petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the
above-captioned proceeding.
II. BACKGROTJND
This case was initiated with the filing of an Application by Suez on Se,ptember 30,2020
seeking a general rate increase of 22.3%o for its roughly 100,000 customers. The Application
was accompanied by the pre-filed testimony of approximately 11 wifiresses together with
supporting exhibits.
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
On October 21,2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Order No.
34819 establishing an intervention deadline for all interested persons, and other matters. CAPAI
timely filed its Petition for Intervention which was granted by the Commission.
Throughout the duration of this case, CAPAI engaged in every aspect including, but not
limited to, analyses of the Company's rationale for a large rate increase, the impact that such an
increase would have on Suez's low-income rate payers, conducting discovery, a multitude of
intra/inter-party teleconferences including extensive settlement negotiations; the latter of which
led to a settlement by the majority of formal parties to the case.
Prior to the formal hearing conducted in this case, intervenors "Bench Intervenors" and
the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC) withdrew from the case.
III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Rule 161 Requirements (IDAPA 31.01.01.161):
Suez is a regulated, water public utility with gross Idaho intrastate annual revenues
exceeding three million, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirements:
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, an itemized list of
all expenses incurred by CAPAI in this proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit *A."
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
Following extensive, multiple settlernent negotiations, a settlement agreement was
reached among and executed by those parties who remained in the rate case to its conclusion,
including CAPAI. A Motion for Approval of that settlement agreement, along with the proposed
settlement agreement itself, was filed with the Commission on March 17,2021.
2CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Throughout the process of this proceeding, CAPAI consistently opposed a rate increase
amounting to nearly 23o/o ilrc, primarily to the fact that such an increase would result in rate
shock for Suez's low-income customers. As the Settlement Stipulation provides, Suez and the
parties ultimately agreed to a significantly reduced rate increase totaling 8.75o/o;3.55% in the
first year and 5.2% in the following year.
In addition to the substantial reduction of the amount of increase sought by Suez, CAPAI
also advocated for discussions with Suez for the purpose of enhancing the Company's "Suez
Cares" bill assistance progrrm. In addition, CAPAI seeks to enhance the ability of low-income
Suez customers to reduce their consumption of water which will also likely result in systern-wide
benefits to all customers by reducing bad debt expense and the associated collection costs
incurred by Suez, loss of customers, etc.
Ultimately, CAPAI and Suez (without objection of any other party) agreed to the
following provision set forth in the Settlement Stipulation:
14. Low-income assistance program. SUEZ Water agrees to meet with CAPAI
to examine the current status of SUEZ Water's low-income assistance program,
the level of participation and effectiveness of the program, and to consider
opportunities to improve SUEZ Water's assistance program for low-income
customers.
From CAPAI's perspective, the foregoing provision in the Settlement Agreement was
intended to allow for discussion of a variety of possible changes to Suez's low-income offering
to allow for flexibility and, hopefully, a more meaningful program. In that respect, CAPAI
appreciates and commends the Company's willingness to, hopefully, collaborate in this endeavor
resulting in system-wide benefits to all Suez ratepayers.
For these reasons, CAPAI recommends that the Commission accept this provision and
the Settlement Stipulation as being fair, just and reasonable.
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
(3) Statement Showing Costs:
CAPAI submits that the costs it seeks to recover through this Petition are reasonable in
amount. CAPAI's legal counsel has roughly thirty (30) years of direct experience before this
Commission as both Deputy Attomey General and in private practice handling a myriad of cases.
CAPAI has historically requested an amount of intervenor funding that prices CAPAI's
Executive Director and legal counsel at levels far less than market rates. Given his nearly three
decades of experience in a field that is undeniably arcane and highly specialized, and given that
legal counsel's current hourly rate of $225 is near the bottom end of market rates for attorneys
with similar experience, CAPAI asserts that the requested funding is reasonable. Yet, given
significant financial hardship that CAPAI is currently facing, no funding is sought for its E.D.
and legal counsel has dropped an already below-market hourly rate of $225 per hour to $ 170. In
addition, CAPAI seeks no costs through this Petition.
CAPAI fully participated in every aspect of this proceeding from start to finish and
provided input and asserted issues not raised by Staff and other parties. CAPAI's participation is
summarized throughout this Petition, including in Exhibit "A." For the reasons stated herein,
CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs it seeks to recover as set forth in Exhibit "A," are
reasonable in amount.
(4) Explanation of Cost Statement:
As the Commission is well aware, CAPAI has intervened, litigated, and worked
collaboratively in proceedings before the IPUC on behalf of Idaho public utility low-income
ratepayers for more than twenty years. CAPAI respectfully submits that, for the past two
decades, it has represented a segment of investor-owned public utility company's ratepayers not
4CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
specifically re,presented by any other entity. While CAPAI is always budget-constrained in such
mattetrs, and despite the fact that this Commission has clearly recognized these facts, the moment
at hand is significantly dire from a financial position for a number of reasons.
CAPAI is now, and has been for roughly four months, operating without a permanent
Executive Director (E.D.) who normally operates as CAPAI's expert. The individual who fills
this position serves as technical expert in PUC proceedings and, occasionally, testifies before the
Commission. Although CAPAI will certainly acquire a qualified applicant to fill this position as
soon as possible, the timing of this is unknown and, consequently, it has been necessary for
CAPAI to rely upon numerous otherpersonnel none of whom intervenor funding is being sought
for in this case.
As the Commission is well aware, CAPAI's intervention before the Commission comes
from the U.S. Deparhnent of Energy and channeled through the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare. The funding and structuring of this funding is never a certainty. Without intervenor
funding, CAPAI will no longer be able to fulfill a role that represents the interests of a critical
and ever-expanding segment of utility ratepayers.
In addition, this particular case involved a significant number of intervenors, all of whom
raised legitimate issues. This fact, however, increased the amount of work necessary for CAPAI,
through its legal counsel, to meaningfully participate.
The Commissionwell knows the financial limitations that CAPAI faces. For example,
CAPAI seldom can afford to retain an outside expert witness and does so only in particularly
technical proceedings. CAPAI has historically requested an amount of intervenor funding that
prices CAPAI's executive director and legal counsel at levels far less than market rates in any
given case. In fact, the undersigned has reduced his already below-market hourly rate of $225 to
5CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FI-]NDING
$170 per hour for this case due to the changing financial circumstances outlined above.
CAPAI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho and has relatively little "discretionary" funds
available for all projects, including participating in IPUC proceedings. CAPAI notes that it has
no choice but to minimize its expenses and maximize the effect that its involvement has in
proceedings before the Commission in light of its limited financial resources for this type of
effort. Thus, CAPAI must adopt a resourceful approach using what limited resources that are at
its disposal.
Finally, CAPAI has no direct monetary stake in the outcome of this or any other
proceeding before the Commission in the sense that it does not represent for-profit businesses or
advocacy groups, directly or indirectly, representing for-profit business interests. CAPAI truly
meets the definition of "non-profit" and is a voice for the low income ratepayers of Suez and all
other regulated public utilities in Idaho.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funding and past awards by this
Commission, CAPAI would not be able to participate in IPUC cases representing an important
and otherwise unrepresented and growing segment of regulated public utility customers. Even
with intervenor funding, participation in Commission cases constitutes a significant financial
hardship because CAPAI must pay its expenses as they are incurred, not if and when intervenor
funding becomes available.
Based on the foregoing, CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs incurred and requested
in this Petition are reasonable in amount.
(05) Statement of Difference
6CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
As with any case at least partially resolved through settlement, details of positions taken
during such negotiations typically cannot be revealed or otherwise disclosed outside of the
settlement process. Thus, to speciff in this case exactly how the positions taken by CAPAI
during settlernent materially differed from those of the Commission Staffcarries the risk of
violating the confidentiality provision of negotiated settlements. Just the same, the positions
taken by CAPAI and the Commission Staffwere certainly not identical and differed materially
from one another. CAPAI specifically represented the interests of Suez's low-income customers
while Staffunderstandably focused on all customers and customer classes.
(06) Statement of Recommendation
Suez's low income customers constitute a significant and increasing segment of the
Company's residential ratepayers. In today's increasingly challenging economic times, issues
affecting low income public utility ratepayers become increasingly important. To the extent that
low income customers are unable to reduce their utility consumption and to pay their utility bills
due to limited financial and other means and to the extent that the poor are most vulnerable to
disconnection due to inability to pay their bills, any measures to assist the Company's low
income customers in paying their bills both clearly and positively affects the general body of
Suez's customers through, among other things, the reduction of bad debt expense, collection
costs, and the lost revenue from customers who cannot afford to pay their electric bills.
In light of the foregoing and the fact that the proposed settlement results in a rate
decrease for all customer classes, CAPAI joins all other parties in recommending that the
Commission approve the proposed settlement and related motion for approval.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
7CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
CAPAI reprosents the low-inoome oustomors of Suez whish, for all emcdoal puqtoses,
are included within the Company's residential olass.
RESPECTFULLY ST BMITTED, this 4th day of May, 2021.
lsl
BradM. Purdy
8CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FI.]NDING
EXHIBIT *A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
CAPAI'S STATEMENT SHOWING COSTS
cAsE NO. SUrW-20-02
The following explanation of cost statement breaks out the general topic and
categories of work performed by the undersigned. As such, it is not a precise replication of
attorney timesheets due to impracticality and the certainty that there would otherwise be a
breach of the attorney-client privilege. Actual hours worked by the undersigned, however,
were taken directly from time sheets and client billings and, thus, are accurate.
General categories of tasks performed during course of case: Brad M. Purdy.
Analysis of Suez General Rate Case Application with testimony of roughly 13
(including Commission Staff) witnesses and numerous attachments and exhibits.
Draft, file and serve CAPAI Petition for Intervention.
Review all intervention petitions and motions opposing same. Telephone conferences
& emails other interuenors.
Receipt and review hundreds of emails, with attachments, from all parties to case
involving all issues.
Numerous teleconferences all parties, including preparation for and participation in
multiple settlement negotiations.
Review all discovery requests and responses.
Review all Commission Orders and Notices. Teleconferences Staff.
Review and execute all settlement documents and revisions thereto,
Review all public comments.
Prepare for and participate in technical hearing.
Total Hours Worked - Brad M. Purdy
Total Hours worked at billable rate: 65.1 hrs. @$l7Olhr.
6.6
2.5
4.6
9.0
19.0
t2.0
3.4
1.0
3.0
$11,067.00
4.0
9CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Costs:
Copies and postage:
TOTAL FEES AI\D COSTS
ru
$11,067.00
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FI.INDING l0
CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigred, hereby certiry that on the 46 day of May, 2O2l,I served a copy of the
foregoing document on the following by elecfronic mail.
COMMISSION STAFF:
Matt Hunter
Dayn Hardie
Deputy Attorneys General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington St.
Boise,lD 83702
Matt. hunter@nuc. idaho. gov
Dayn.hardi e@nuc. idaho. gov
SUEZ CORPORATION
David Njuguna
461 From Rd., Suite 400
Paramus, NJ 07052
Email : david.niuquna@suez. com
Michael C. Creamer
Preston N. Carter
Givens Pursley LLP
Boise,lD 83701-2720
Email: mcc@ givenspursley.com
prestoncarter@ givenspursley. com
ADA COI]NTY
Lorna Jorgense,n
John Cortabitarte
lj [e-mail]. eov
j cortabitarte@ adacountv. id. gov
CITY OF BOISE CITY
Mary Grant
boi secityattorney@cityofboi se.ore
Scott B. Muir
boi secityattorney@cityofboise. ore
SUEZ WATER CUSTOMER GROT]P
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 11
Norman M. Semanko
Parsons Behle & Latimer
nsemanko @t arsonsbehle. com
boisedocket@oarsonsbehl e. com
INTERVENORS
Marty Durand
Piotrowski Durand
[e-mail]
INTERMOT]NTAIN FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL
KenNagy
Attorney at Law
[e-mail]
Zoe AnnOlson
[e-mail]
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INI)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Austin Rueschhoff
Thorvald A. Nelson
darueschho ff@hollandhart. com
tnel son@hollandhart. com
aclee@hollandhart. com
gl eareanoamari@hollandhart. com
lsl
Brad M. Purdy
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING t2