20100308Application for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
BarNo. 3472
2019 N. 17th S1.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
bmpurdytihotmail.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
r.Fi ;:r"v.., j:_",~J
ZOW MÂR -8 PH 3= 0 I
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF UNITED WATER IDAHO, INC. FOR )
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )
AND CHARGES IN THE STATE OF )IDAHO. )
)
)
)
CASE NO. UWI-W-09-1
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
TION OF IDAHO'S APPLIC-
ATION FOR INTERVENOR
FUNDING
COMES NOW, Applicant Community Action Partnership Association ofIdaho (CAP AI)
and, pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01, applies to this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in
the above-captioned proceeding.
Rule 161 Requirements
United Water Idaho C"UWI") is a regulated, public water utility with gross Idaho
intrastate, annual revenues exceeding three milion, five hundred thousand dollars
($3,500,000.00).
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
An itemized list of CAP AI's expenses which it seeks to recover is contained in Exhibit
""A" to this Application.
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 1
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed findings and recommendations of CAP AI are set forth in the direct,
prefiled testimony of Mary Chant and reflected in the Settlement Stipulation executed by the
parties to this case. As the Commission noted in various Notices and Orders issued prior to its
final order in this case, i several events transpired prompting the Commission to deviate from the
typical prefile of direct testimony and exhibits followed by a technical hearng. Prior to the
previously established testimony/exhibit prefile deadlines, the three parties to this proceeding,
UWI, Commission Staff and CAPAI, executed a Settlement Stipulation including all aspects of
the Company's filing, as well as issues raised by Staffand CAPAI. As a result, the Commission
opted to conduct a ""public comment" rather than ""technical" hearing to give the paries and all
other interested persons the opportnity to comment on the Settlement Stipulation reached by the
three parties.
The public hearing was conducted on February 22,2010. By that point in time, CAPAI
had already filed the testimony of Mary Chant. Due to the Commission's selected procedure,
CAP AI fied Ms. Chant's testimony as ""comments" considering that no formal testimony or
exhibits were to be spread or entered into the formal record of the case other than as comments.
The other parties to this case similarly relied upon prefied testimony and exhibits to serve as
comments to the Commission regarding the Settlement.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAPAI submits that the costs and fees incurred in this case, and set forth in Exhibit ""A,"
are reasonable in amount. CAP AI fully participated in every settlement discussion conducted in
this case and provided input throughout the process. In addition to the numerous meetings
conducted, there were significant other forms of communication, internal analyses, side bar
i Order No. 31016
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
discussions, discovery, and other activities that required considerable work on the par of CAP AI
personnel and its legal counseL.
(04) Explanation of.Cost Statement
CAP AI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho. CAP AI's funding for any given effort might come
from a different variety of sources, including governental. Many of those funding sources,
however, are unpredictable and impose conditions or limitations on the scope and nature of work
eligible for funding. CAP AI, therefore, has relatively little .'discretionary" funds available and
what little exists must cover a variety of competing projects. CAP AI has incurred considerable
expense participating in this very important proceeding. There are numerous other examples of
projects worthy of CAP AI's involvement but for which funding is unavailable.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funds and past awards by this
Commission, CAP AI would not be able to participate in cases before this Commission leaving a
gap not likely to be filled by any other entity. Even with intervenor funding, participation in
Commission cases constitutes a significant financial hardship in terms of cash flow because
CAPAI must pay its expenses as they are incurred, not if and when intervenor funding becomes
available.
(05) Statement of Difference
Regarding CAPAI's "Statement of Difference," it is fair to say that there were numerous
differences of opinion on a multitude of issues between the parties as the two day settlement
process unfolded. Though paragraph 20 of the Settlement Stipulation prohibits the signatories
from discussing statements made and positions taken during the settlement negotiations, like any
settlement stipulation, the final document reflects a number of compromises of position by the
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
varous parties. Nonetheless, each ofthe three parties supports the Settlement Stipulation in its
entirety.
The initial procedural handling of this case, however, was somewhat problematic for
CAPAI. UWI filed a Motion for Order Waiving Requirement for Cost of Service Study2 in July,
2009, prior to the actual filing ofthe rate case Application and, obviously, before the
Commission's Notice of Application and Intervention Deadline was issued. The Commission
granted UWI's Motion on July 16, 2009, two weeks after it was filed.3 Thus, CAPAI had had no
feasible way of knowing that the Motion had been filed and no ability to challenge it until well
after it had been granted. In fact, CAP AI was unaware of the Motion and Order until Januar,
2010 on the day settlement negotiations commenced.
CAP AI fully acknowledges that the challenges that resulted from this sequence of events
were not intended by any entity. Regardless, by the time the parties met to discuss settlement,
CAP AI, unaware of the limitations of the scope of the case, had invested considerable time and
effort into analyzing and proposing rate design changes preparng to propose them at technical
hearing, should the case have proceeded to that point. Without revealing the details of CAP AI's
position on rate design issues, it is fair to say that there existed a material difference of opinion
between Staff and CAPAI for purposes ofIDAPA 31.01.162(5).4
In addition, CAP AI was the only party to propose that UWI agree to discuss possible
changes to its ..United Water Cares Program" and to analyze means in which to better inform its
customers of ways to reduce water consumption. The Commission agreed with all of these
2 The Motion also sought authority to not address rate design issues, including seasonal rate differentials.
3 See, Order No. 30865.
4 The Rule of Procedure requirig a material difference between an intervenor and Staff to qualifY for funding.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 4
proposals and, among other things, directed the paries to convene an informal workshop to
discuss United Water Cares and water conservation.5
Based on the foregoing, CAP AI respectfully submits that it took positions materially
different than the Commission Staff in this proceeding.
06) Statement of Recommendation
Again, the Settlement Stipulation, and how it benefits the general body of ratepayers,
largely speaks for itself CAP AI notes the obvious benefits to general ratepayers of, among other
things, a material reduction in the amount of rate increase-sought by the Company, a two-part
phase-in of the rate increase ultimately settled upon, an agreement to work toward enhancing the
United Water Cares Program, increasing participation in water conservation, and a rate
moratorium. Thus, CAP AI's recommendations and positions addressed issues of concern to the
general body of customers.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAP AI represents a specific UWI customer class, it is the residential
class.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 8th day of March, 2010.
6~BradM.~
5 Order No. 31016 atp. 10.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on March 8t\ 2010, I caused the foregoing APPLICATION FOR
INTERVENOR FUNDING on the following via email attachment, to be followed by hard copy,
U.S. Postage.
Weldon B. Stutzman
Chrstine Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, Idaho 83702
Joe Miller
McDevitt & Miler
420 W. Bannock St.
Boise,ID 83702 ~\
. Purdy ~
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 6
EXHIBIT "A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postage $18.75
Total Costs $18.75
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy-33 hours (i $145.001h.)$4,785.00
$675.00Expert(Mary Chant - 15 hours (i $45.001h.)
Total Fees:$5,460.00
Total Expenses:$5,478.75
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 7