20080211Vol I Technical Hearing.pdf

ORIGINAL.BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
TO ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS IN THE
STATE OF IDAHO
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-07-08
)
)
)
)
)
BEFORE
..Pii:
m
COMMISSIONER MARSHA SMITH (Presiding)
COMMISSIONER MACK REDFORD
COMMISSIONER' JIM KEMPTON
'2
.
PLACE: Commission Hearing Room
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho
DATE: January 23, 2008
VOLUME I - Pages 1 - 29
.
CSB REPORTING
Constance S. Bucy, CSR No. 187
23876 Applewod Way * Wilder, Idaho 83676
[phone] * [phone]
Email csb(Ðheritagewifi.com
.
.
.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 For the Staff:Weldon Stutzman, Esq.
and Neil Price, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
472 West Washington
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Barton L. Kline, Esq.
and Lisa D. Nordstrom, Esq.
Idaho Power Company
Post Office Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
RICHARDSON & 0' LEARY
by Peter J. Richardson, Esq.
Post Office Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
RACINE, OLSEN, NYE, BUDGE
& BAILEY
by Eric L. Olsen, Esq.
Post Office Box 1391
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
Lot H. Cooke, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
U. S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
by Conley E. Ward, Esq.
Post Office Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
by Kurt J. Boehm, Esq.
36 E. Seventh Street
Suite 1510
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
-and-
FISHER PUSCH & ALDERMAN LLPby John R. Hamond, Jr., Esq.
Post Office Box 1308
Boise, Idaho 83701
4
5
6 For Idaho Power Company:
7
8
9 For Industrial Customers
of Idaho Power:
10
11
For Idaho Irrigation
Pumpers Association:
For The United States
Department of Energy:
(Of Record)
For Micron Technology,
Inc. :
For The Kroger Company:
(Of Record)
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
APPEARANCES
.1 I N D E X
2
3 WITNESS EXAMINATION BY PAGE
4 John R.Gale Mr.Kline (Direct)7
(Idaho Power Company)Mr.Olsen (Cross)11
5
Randy Lobb Mr.Stutzman (Direct)12
6 (Staff)
7 Kevin C.Higgins Mr.Hammond (Direct)19
(Kroger Company)
8
9
10
11
12.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24.25
CSB REPORTING INDEX
Wilder,ID 83676
.1 BOISE, IDAHO, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2008, 9: 50 A. M.
2
3
4 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Good morning, ladies
5 and gentlemen. This is the time and place set for a
6 hearing in Idaho Public Utilities Commission Case No.
7 IPC-E-07-08, further identified as in the matter of the
8 application of Idaho Power Company for authority to
9 increase its rates and charges for electric service to
10 electric customers in the State of Idaho.
11 We'll begin this morning let's see,
12 there may be people who don't know us. My name is Marsha.13 Smi th. I'm one of the Commissioners. I'm Chairing
14 today' shearing. On my left is Mack Redford who is the
15 President of the Commission, and on my right is Jim
16 Kempton and the three of us are the Public Utili ties
17 Commission for the State of Idaho.
18 We'll begin this morning by taking the
19 appearances of the parties and begin with the
20 Applicant.
21 MR. KLINE: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
22 Appearing on behalf of Idaho Power Company are Bart Kline
23 and Lisa Nordstrom.
24 COMMISSIONER SMITH: And for the.25 Commission Staff.
l
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
1 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 MR. STUTZMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
2 Weldon Stutzman, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of
3 the Commission Staff along with Neil Price, Deputy
4 Attorney General.
5 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. We have
6 several intervenors. For the Industrial Customers of
7 Idaho Power.
8 MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you,
9 Madam Chairman. This is Peter Richardson on behalf of
10 the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power.
11 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, and the
12 Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association.
13 MR. OLSEN: Yes, Madam Chairman, Eric
14 Olsen for the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association.
15 COMMISSIONER SMITH: And for the Kroger
16 Company.
17 MR. HAMMOND: John Hammond, Fisher Pusch &
18 Alderman. Our names change so often lately that -- thank
19 you.
20
21
COMMISSIONER SMITH: And for Micron.
MR. WARD: Conley Ward for Micron
22 Technology.
23 COMMISSIONER SMITH: And for the United
24 States Department of Energy. Let the record reflect that
25 there is no one appearing on behalf of the U. S.
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
2 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 Department of Energy this morning.It's my understanding
2 that instead of the exciting four days of hearings that
3 we anticipated, we have instead a different process this
4 morning and I assume, Mr. Kline, you're going to tell us
5 about that.
6 MR. KLINE: I will take a start on it,
7 Madam Chairman and, of course, other folks, particularly
8 Staff counsel, can join. This morning at about 8: 30, a
9 quarter of 9: 00, Idaho Power filed a motion
10 COMMISSIONER SMITH: 8: 58 .
11 MR. KLINE: Okay, thank you -- filed a
12 motion which included a settlement stipulation signed by
13 all of the parties to the proceeding, with the exception
14 of the Kroger Company, and it would be our intention this
15 morning to present testimony from Idaho Power witness Ric
16 Gale in support of that motion. I believe the Staff also
17 intends to present a witness in support of that motion.
18 I don't know about anybody else, and that's about as far
19 as we have.
20 I have extra copies of the motion if
21 people need them since it was filed so late today, the
22 folks who might want a copy that may not have them. The
23 reason it was filed so late is we reached a settlement
24 agreement very late last week and it was just the
25 logistics of getting everything put together.It took
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
3 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
t
1 awhile. I apologize for getting it to the Commission as
2 late as we did.
3 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay. Is there any
4 other parties besides the Company and the Staff which
5 intend to put on a witness this morning?
6 Mr. Hammond.
7 MR. HAMMOND: That would be me, joining
8 late in the game. Kroger would like to, while it is
9 generally supportive of the overall settlement agreement,
10 would like to put its direct testimony in the record of
11 Mr. Higgins on one singular issue. I guess there's one
12 detail on which they disagree and would just like the
13 opportuni ty to present that testimony.
14 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Is there any
15 obj ection to this procedure?
16 MR. KLINE: I do have some concerns about
17 exactly what the statement from Kroger will consist of
18 and I would be glad to address that just prior to their
19 presenting their statement.
20 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Kline, isn't it
21 their prefiled testimony?
22 MR. KLINE: I don't know for sure. What
23 we have received from Kroger is an indication that they
24 want to make a statement regarding the settlement and I
25 just want to make sure we know what the ground rules are
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
4 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 before they do that.
2 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Hammond.
3 MR. HAMMOND: I believe in my short
4 discussion with Mr. Higgins they would like to enter the
5 direct testimony into the record, but I think Mr. Kline
6 is right. They would like to have the opportunity, also,
7 to further comment, if possible, if allowed by the
8 Commission on that singular detail.
9 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Kline, I think
10 it's probably acceptable that every party will have the
11 opportuni ty to comment on their views on the settlement
12 that's filed.
13 MR. KLINE: I would concur.
14 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Whether they're
15 supporting it or not.
16 MR. KLINE: I would concur, Madam Chair.
17 I do have some concerns and if you would like me to
18 address those now, I can or we can do it right before.
19 We can get the testimony spread and then move to the
20 statements.
21 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Let' s wait until then
22 and see if there's even an issue, all right? Then we'll
23 begin with your witness, Mr. Kline.
24
25
MR. KLINE: It was my understanding -- are
we going to spread the testimony of the witnesses prior
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
5 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 to presenting the testimony?
2 COMMISSIONER SMITH: The Commission has
3 used in the past and will use today a procedure where we
4 don't need to spread the prefiled testimony over the
5 record. What we will do under Rule of Procedure 283
6 which provides that the Commission may add to the hearing
7 record by reference any document in the Commission
8 secretary's official file which does include all prefiled
9 testimony and exhibits, but we have the obligation to
10 notify the parties that we have this intention and give
11 you a reasonable opportunity to object, review, examine
12 and rebut or contest those documents, so I would now
13 declare that it is the Commission's intent to incorporate
14 by reference the prefiled testimonies and exhibits of the
15 parties in this case under the Procédure of Rule 283 and
16 allow you this opportunity to obj ect if you have any
17 obj ection.
18 Seeing no objection, the Commission
19 determines that none of the parties obj ect to this
20 process and so we will incorporate by reference the
21 prefiled testimony and exhibits that is in the
22 secretary's official file.
23 MR. KLINE: Thank you. With that, I would
24 like to call the Idaho Power' s witness Ric Gale.
25
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
6 COLLOQUY
.1 JOHN R. GALE,
2 produced as a witness at the instance of the Idaho Power
3 Company, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
4 testified as follows:
5
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION
7
8 BY MR. KLINE:
9 Q Mr. Gale, would you please state your name
10 for the record?
11 A My name is John Gale. I'm commonly
12 referred to as Ric..13 Q Mr. Gale, are you the same Ric Gale who
14 pre filed direct and rebuttal testimony in this case and
15 that by reference your testimony and exhibits have been
16 entered into the hearing record in this case?
17 A Yes, I am.
18 Q Did you participate in the development of
19 the settlement stipulation that was filed with the
20 Commission this morning?
21 A Yes, I did.
22 Q Could you please explain why Idaho Power
23 Company is requesting that the Commission approve the
24 set tlement agreement?.25 A Yes, I'd be happy to. First, I'd like to
.
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
7 GALE (Di)
Idaho Power Company
.
.
.
1 take one moment with the indulgence of the Commission and
2 express the Company's and my appreciation to the parties
3 in the multiple iterations, the patience and persistence
4 that it took to get this transaction accomplished and
5 particularly for some later shift with the Staff and,
6 again, persisting to make it happen, so that's very much
7 appreciated.
8 I would begin by saying going into this
9 case and as the case evolved there were three main
10 obj ecti ves from Idaho Power' s perspective. Those three
11 were material rate relief; secondly , it was the Company's
12 express desire to have the ability to file forecast test
13 years; and third, as the case evolved a reasonable
14 outcome to the load growth adj ustment rate which as the
15 case developed became a major issue in this case, so in
16 viewing the settlement in total, the Company views the
17 settlement as addressing these three obj ecti ves of the
18 Company. The $32 million in Idaho rate relief is
19 significant and provides needed rate relief to the
20 Company and viewed with the context of the other
21 provisions is satisfactory and fair in my view.
22 The second objective, the one having to do
23 with the forecast test year, there is a provision in the
24 stipulation that speaks to Company and Staff and other
25 parties addressing the concerns that were elevated in
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
8 GALE (Di)
Idaho Power Company
.1 this case with the need for audited data and the
2 Company's express desire for more timely rate relief and
3 we are very satisfied with that provision and think that
4 by the time we file our next general rate case that much
5 of the controversy regarding the test year itself will be
6 reduced; and then the third regarding the load growth
7 adjustment rate, we were able to find a compromise
8 posi tion at this time which would be in place for
9 basically one year, and that compromised position is
10 accepting the Staff's load growth adjustment rate, but
11 applying it to half of the load growth, so in essence,
12 cutting that rate in half and I think that's a good.13
14
accommodation.
Obviously, the Commission has spoken to
15 the load growth adjustment in the past, but also, I'm not
16 sure I anticipated the extreme results that its
17 application brings, so that gives us a year to work on a
18 sustainable load growth adjustment rate or some
19 replacement that would address the load growth element of
20 the power cost adjustment, so we think that is a
21 satisfactory element to the stipulation, and there are
22 just two others that I would mention.
23 One, in the stipulation there is an
24 acknowledgment to the residential class and a provision.25 for a lower than average rate and I think that's a
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
9 GALE (Di)
Idaho Power Company
.1 reasonable accommodation for that residential class and
2 the Company is appreciative of the other customer classes
3 in picking up that difference. There were some in
4 support of lower rates for residential and, obviously,
5 some not, so to end up where residential does get a below
6 average rate with the other customers picking up the
7 difference is, I think, a good place to end this case.
8 Obviously, the stipulation speaks to the fact that this
9 is not precedent at all, but a good place to end at this
10 point in time.
11 The last thing I wanted to basically
12 appreciate is the other parties' endorsement of a timely.13 resolution or encouraged the Commission to a timely
14 resolution of this case.
15 Q And in that regard, you're talking about
16 section 10 of the stipulation where the parties encourage
17 the Commission to issue an Order by March 1st?
18 A Yes, I am.
19 MR. KLINE: All right, that's all I have,
20 Madam Chairman.
21 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Are there any
22 questions for Mr. Gale from any of the parties?
23 Yes, Mr. Olsen.
,24.25
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
10 GALE (Di)
Idaho Power Company
.
.
.
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION
2
3 BY MR. OLSEN:
4 Q Yes, Mr. Gale, just one question. The
5 stipulation also contains some language in there as it
6 regards the peak rewards program; is that correct?
7 A Yes, it does.
8 Q Okay, and in that can you summarize what
9 the parties have agreed with respect to the peak rewards
10 program?
11 A Well, the concern was expressed regarding
12 the peak rewards program and in particular, the value to
13 participants in that program and the Company has
14 committed to the irrigation pumpers, let me get it right,
15 that's provision 9
16 MR. KLINE: Page 5, yes.
17 THE WITNESS: page 5, provision 9 to
18 convene a working group to discuss the operation and
19 resul ts of the peak rewards program, design and
20 implementation and dispatchable demand response pilot
21 program for the 2009 irrigation and the method used to
22 determine the amount of incentive payments and possible
23 improvements to the marketing and additional steps to
24 ensure the effects of irrigation demand response are
25 adequately reflected and we stand by that commitment.
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
11 GALE (X)
Idaho Power Company
.
10
.
.
1 MR. OLSEN: I have no further questions,
2 Your Honor.
3 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. Are there
4 questions from the Commission?
5 COMMISSIONER REDFORD: No.
6 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Nor I. No redirect?
7 MR. KLINE: We have no other witnesses.
8 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Then no other
9 wi tnesses. Thank you for your help, Mr. Gale.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11 (The witness left the stand.)
12 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Stutzman.
13 MR. STUTZMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
14 Staff would call Randy Lobb, please.
15
16 RANDY LOBB,
17 produced as a witness at the instance of the Staff,
18 having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
19 as follows:
20
21 DIRECT EXAMINATION
22
23 BY MR. STUTZMAN:
24 Please state your name for the record.Q
25 A My name is Randy Lobb.
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
12 LOBB (Di)Staff
.1 Q And how are you employed?
2 A I am the administrator of the utili ties
3 di vision at the Idaho Public Utili ties Commission.
4 Q And did you supervise preparation of
5 Staff's prefiled testimony in this case?
6 A Yes, I did.
7 Q Does Staff support the stipulation that's
8 been filed this morning?
9 A Yes, we do.
10 Q Do you believe it serves the public
11 interest?
12 A Yes, yes, I do..13 Q In its material terms does the stipulation
14 differ from positions that Staff advocated in its
15 prefiled testimony?
16 A Yes, it does in three main ways. The
17 first way is obviously in the revenue requirement
18 increase. The Staff had proposed a 2.82 percent increase
19 in its prefiled testimony. The stipulation specifies an
20 overall increase of 5.2 percent.
21 The second significant difference is in
22 the revenue spread among the various customer classes.
23 In the prefiled testimony, the Staff proposed a range of
24 1.37 percent to 10 percent for the various classes. The
f .25 stipulation specifies a 4.7 percent increase for the
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
13 LOBB (Oi)Staff
l
.
.
.
1 residential class and a 5. 7 percent increase for the
2 other classes.
3 The third significant difference is the
4 load growth adj ustment. The Staff proposed in prefiled
5 testimony to establish a load growth adjustment at $62.79
6 per megawatt-hour and apply that to all load growth in
7 between rate cases. The stipulation proposes the same
8 $ 62. 79 per megawatt-hour, but applies it to only half of
9 the load growth over the next year, so that would be an
10 interim compromise. Those are the three significant
11 differences between Staff's prefile and the
12 stipulation.
13 Q Okay, given those differences from Staff's
14 testimony, why do you think the stipulation is reasonable
15 and in the public interest?
16 A Well, with regard to revenue requirement,
17 Staff looked at the prefiled testimony and identified
18 several issues that we believed needed to be included in
19 revenue requirement, such as payroll, known payroll,
20 changes, year-end capital structure, several mismatches
21 in the test year used by the Staff and adjustments that
22 we belief were probably necessary to come up with the 5.2
23 percent overall increase.
24 It's 50 percent of that requested by the
25 Company and we believed it provided an opportunity to
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
14 LOBB (Di)Staff
.
.
.
1 further review test year in the future as part of the
2 stipulation, so we believe the revenue requirement was a
3 reasonable compromise and it provided an opportunity to
4 look at how a test year would be filed next time.
5 Secondly, we believe that the revenue
6 spread at least followed what we believed was a proper
7 indication by cost of service. Residential class
8 recei ved a lower than average rate increase. We believe
9 that was appropriate and an important part of the
10 stipulation. We also believe that with an '08 filing
11 anticipated by the Company, a general rate case filing in
12 '08, that we could further develop the cost of service
13 information that would further justify a different
14 revenue spread among the various customer classes.
15 I think all parties believe that there was
16 more investigation to be done and further information
17 that could be provided by the Company in the next case or
18 by the parties in the next case so that the Commission
19 might make a more informed decision on how to apply cost
20 of service.
21 Lastly, the load growth adj ustment is a
22 compromise, I think, that balances the need to adjust for
23 the cost of load growth in between rate cases and yet
24 recognizes that the Company is severely impacted by the
25 calculation of marginal power supply costs caused by load
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
15 LOBB (Oi)Staff
.1 growth, so the Staff agreed to utilize the methodology
2 established by the Commission in the recent load growth
3 adj ustment case at 62. 79, a compromise in the interim to
4 apply that to 50 percent of the load growth in '08 and
5 si t down and really talk about what the impact is in
6 between rate cases, how we might address that issue in
7 the context of the PCA and present maybe a better
8 solution to that issue in the next case, so those three
9 things I think we've accomplished a compromise that I
10 believe is in the public interest.
11
.
, .
MR. STUTZMAN: Thank you. That concludes
12 my questions.
13 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Are there any
14 questions for Mr. Lobb from any other parties?
15 Are there any questions for Mr. Lobb from
16 the Commission?
17 COMMISSIONER REDFORD: No.
18 COMMISSIONER SMITH: We thank you for your
19 help.
20 (The witness left the stand.)
21 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Hammond.
22 MR. HAMMOND: Kroger would like to call
23 Kevin Higgins to the stand.
24 MR. KLINE: Madam Chairman.
25 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Kline.
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
16 LOBB (Di)Staff
.1 MR. KLINE: Before Mr. Higgins, I guess
2 while Mr. Higgins is taking the stand, I'd like to spend
3 just a couple of minutes to express some concern perhaps
4 about the scope of the presentation by Mr. Higgins. I
5 certainly recognize as the Chair pointed out earlier that
6 parties to the proceeding have the right to present
7 statements explaining their position on the settlement
8 and we certainly have no quarrel with that; however, in
9 our prior discussions with Kroger about what they were
10 going to present today, they were a little bit vague
11 about going beyond the scope of what they had originally
12 presented in their testimony, and I don't want to obj ect.13 to the presentation, but I do think that it might be
14 appropriate for us to discuss, I guess, kind of the
15 ground rules a little bit to make sure that we don't have
16 a problem with procedural due process or with the
17 integri ty of our record in this case.
18 My feeling is that Kroger should not be
19 permitted to introduce new evidence, new facts, new
20 analyses as a part of a statement. Certainly, they
21 shouldn't be allowed to supplement the testimony that's
22 already been admitted into the record by means of a
23 statement.I think if they are -- if we can keep the
24 statement to things that don't include the introduction.25 of new evidence, that don't include new analyses, then I
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
17 COLLOQUY
.1 think we're probably fine, but I am concerned that if the
2 statement puts new evidence into the record, we have a
3 problem with both the procedure and the integrity of the
4 record. That's my concern and if Kroger can work within
5 those bounds, I have no problem.
6 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay. Well,
7 Mr. Kline, I think the way to proceed is to allow Kroger
8 to put its testimony on and see if there is additional
9 and if they say something that you think goes beyond what
10 they've prefiled, what you anticipated, then we'll raise
11 it at that time. Is that acceptable, Mr. Hammond?
12.
..
l
MR. HAMMOND: Seriously, though, I come
13 over here on a moment's notice and he's obj ecting to
14 everything, so I apologize if I'm behind the curve here,
15 so that's fine with me.
16 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
18 COLLOQUY
.1 KEVIN C. HIGGINS,
2 produced as a witness at the instance of the Kroger
3 Company, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
4 testified as follows:
5
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION
7
8 BY MR. HAMMOND:
9 Q Sir, could you state your name and spell
10 your last name for the record?
11 A My name is Kevin C. Higgins,
12 H-i-g-g-i-n-s..13 Q Can you tell me where you're employed?
14 A I'm employed with Energy Strategies, a
15 consul ting firm in Salt Lake City.
16 Q And can you tell me what your professional
17 background is?
18 A I'm an economist and I have provided
t 19 expert testimony in matters involving utility regulation
20 for over 20 years in 27 jurisdictions.
21 Q Did you cause prefiled testimony to be
.22 filed or your prefiled direct testimony to be filed in
23 this case?
24 A Yes, I did.
~.25 Q Are there any additions or corrections to
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
19 HIGGINS (Oi)
The Kroger Company
.
.
.
1 that testimony at this point in time?
2 A There are no additions or corrections.
3 Q In general, there's been testimony about
4 the settlement agreement here today. What is Kroger's
5 position on the settlement agreement?
6 A Kroger is generally supportive of the
7 settlement agreement. We do believe it is deficient in a
8 single detail and that single detail speaks to the
9 availabili ty of time of use rates for schedule 9P and 9T
10 customers which was the subj ect of my direct testimony,
11 and Kroger respectfully requests that the Commission
12 address this issue in any final Order in this -- in its
13 final Order on this case, and we specifically would
14 request that the Commission in its final Order order
15 Idaho Power Company to adopt a time of use optional rate
16 for schedule 9P and 9T customers with the energy charge
17 based on the rate 19 time of use energy charges as
18 described in my direct testimony.
19 Q Do you have anything further to add today
20 in regards to your testimony?
21 A I would simply note that Idaho Power
22 Company filed rebuttal testimony to my proposal and in
23 the Company's rebuttal testimony, Idaho Power did offer
24 an al ternati ve time of use rate for rate 9P and 9T
25 customers on a voluntary basis; however, the Company's
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
20 HIGGINS (Di)
The Kroger Company
.1 proposal was one in which the time of use energy rate
2 would be set 5 percent higher for the 9P and 9T customers
3 than the rate 19 customers and we do not believe that
4 adopting that proposal, even though it appears to be a
5 movement in our direction, is in the public interest
6 because we do not believe that customers will find that
7 rate attractive enough to actually migrate to it and our
8 concern is that it would send a false message that time
9 of use rates for commercial customers are not of
10 interest, so rather than adopt a program which we believe
11 would fail, we would prefer no program or the program
12 that we had recommended or a compromise between the.13 two.
14 Q My understanding is the testimony has
15 already been incorporated in the record, so there's no
16 need to spread it upon the record as my experience in
17 previous hearings has gone. Are there any other matters
18 you wish to address at this time?
19 A No, thank you. I do want to thank the
20 Commission, however, for indulging us with this time
21 delay that was caused by logistics and the other parties
22 as well.
23 MR. HAMMOND: I would open the witness up
24 for questions from other parties..25 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Are there any
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
21 HIGGINS (Di)
The Kroger Company
.1 questions of this witness from any of the parties?
2 Mr. Kline.
3 MR. KLINE: Madam Chairman, could I just
4 indulge -- I may have some questions for the witness, but
5 if I could just consult with my client very quickly, we
6 may be able to dispose of that.
7 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Why don't we take a
8 10-minute break.
9 MR. KLINE: All right, thank you.
10 (Recess. )
11 COMMISSIONER SMITH: All right, we'll be
12 back on the record. Mr. Kline..13 MR. KLINE: Madam Chairman, we have
14 concluded that we addressed the issues raised by the
15 wi tness in our prefiled testimony, so we have no
16 cross-examination for this witness.
17 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you. I guess
18 that means -- are there any questions from the
19 Commission?
~
20 COMMISSIONER KEMPTON: No.
21 COMMISSIONER REDFORD: No.
22 COMMISSIONER SMITH: I guess that means
,23 you have no redi rect, Mr. Hammond.
24 MR. HAMMOND: I do not..25 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay, thank you for
~CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
22 HIGGINS (Oi)
The Kroger Company
.
.
.
1 your help.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 (The witness left the stand.)
4 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Are there any other
5 witnesses to come before the Commission at this time?
6 Are there any other matters to come before the Commission
7 at this time? No one desires to file extensive
8 posthearing briefs? Argue at length? Mr. Olsen, I knew
9 there would be a taker.
10 MR. OLSEN: Just in the nature of some
11 comments, I guess, for our clients for the stipulation.
12 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Please proceed.
13 MR. OLSEN: Madam Chairman, we
14 participated, I think, in the settlement negotiations and
15 fully went through this case. We would like to, I guess,
16 confirm what has been said that we think this is a
17 reasonable compromise of the issues. The cost of service
18 issues, I think, are certainly a thorny issue and I guess
19 the difference between the residential class and the even
20 spread with the other customers I think was a fair
21 compromise at this point in time, but certainly we mark
22 that for another proceeding where that can be further
23 developed.
24 The Irrigators also wanted to point out
25 wi th Mr. Gale's testimony that we've been trying to work
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
23 COLLOQUY
.1 on the irrigation peak rewards program and are thankful
2 for the Company of working with us on that. As you know
3 in the Rocky Mountain Power system,. it appears to be a
4 very successful program and hopefully will implement a
5 dispatchable-type interruptibility program and by
6 improving that and shaving that crucial summer peak load,
7 I think the Irrigators can provide that benefit, also,
8 have a tool or avenue to help control their costs and
9 certainly benefit the whole Idaho Power system.
10 One other last comment that I would like
11 to make. Recently in the Rocky Mountain Power case, we
12 had participated in that settlement and also filed award.13 of intervenor funding and we also plan on doing that here
14 in this case as well. We are very grateful for the
15 Commission's awards in the past and the Irrigators have
16 been a beneficiary of that with the limited resources
17 which the statute allows; however, in this last case and
18 in some settled prior cases we appear to be getting sent
19 some mixed signals as to what the standards are
20 potentially and how this would apply in a settled case or
21 distinguish it between a litigated case and that was
.22 language that was in this past Order confirming the
23 settlement in the Rocky Mountain Power case.
24 Now, if the language is to mean anything
,.25 if this is settled rather than litigated as a reason for
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
24 COLLOQUY
.1 not awarding the full amount that's available of the
2 intervenor funding, that could be taken in a couple of
3 ways. Does that mean that we as parties need to litigate
4 to get the full benefit of that or is that discouraging
5 settlement? It just raises a question in our minds,
6 that's one way that it could be read. I don't think that
7 was the intent, but the language of the last Order
8 appeared to show that in our minds and so we hope that's
9 not the case because, obviously, there are situations
10 where the parties can bring about a settlement that would
11 be of the best interests of all parties and probably
12 something the Commission could do on its own right, so I.13 hope that's not the case and so what we want to express
14 is that we feel that, obviously, the global policy is to
15 encourage participation. The Irrigators have limited
16 resources to do so and if all cases need to be litigated,
17 we can't get involved in certainly everything, in all
18 those cases, to get the award of intervenor funding.
19 Another point, if the Commission feels
20 that for some reason they need to be frugal with the
21 allotted monies that are out there, I would just like to
22 point out that the statute in the Commission rules
23 provides that the award is allocated to the customer
,
24 class which the person represents and so, in essence,.25 that class pays for that cost. It's not other customer
,CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
25 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
1 classes once you've made your initial findings and so it
2 seems that the policy would be not served by not allowing
3 full use of those monies if an application is made, so
4 wi th that, I make an end to my comments. Thank you.
5 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Olsen.
6 Are there questions or comments from the Commission?
7 COMMISSIONER SMITH: I would just note
8 that under Rule 164 today is the last evidentiary hearing
9 and you have 14 days to file your intervenor funding
10 applications.
11 MR. OLSEN: Thank you.
12 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Hammond.
13 MR. HAMMOND: Just one issue and I don't
14 mean to cause trouble, but you had mentioned posthearing
15 briefing. I have not talked, obviously, to counsel for
16 Kroger who is enroute. Mr. Higgins has told me he
17 doesn't anticipate that there would be anything, but I
18 would just li ke the opportunity to reserve that, get
19 ahold of Mr. Kurtz and make sure that there is nothing
20 that I am giving up that they would want to ask you for,
21 I guess.
22
23
COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay. Mr. Kline.
MR. KLINE: Well, I just want to express
24 on behalf of the Company the desire that we process this
25 case quickly and if the request for briefs would delay
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
26 COLLOQUY
.1 the Commission's ultimate decision, that's of concern to
2 us. We've already delayed the case approximately six or
3 seven weeks and it's just hard to understand what briefs
4 could add.
5 COMMISSIONER SMITH: The Commission is
6 well aware of its statutory deadline and will proceed
7 accordingly and you obviously need to check, Mr. Hammond,
8 wi th your clients and if there is a problem, let us know
9 and we'll work on it then; otherwise, we'll assume that
10 no briefs are necessary and I would say I have read the
11 testimony of Mr. Higgins and I think it's very clear and
12 probably wouldn't -- there are no legal issues there I.13 know that need illuminated.
14 MR. HAMMOND: I don't believe so, just in
15 an abundance of caution.
16 COMMISSIONER SMITH: All right, if there's
17 nothing else to come before the Commission, we will close
18 this hearing and declare that the record is closed and
19 the Commission will deliberate as speedily as it can and
20 issue an Order as speedily as it can and we appreciate
21 the patience and cooperation of the parties this morning
22 wi th our little delays and we appreciate all your efforts
23 with regard to the settlement and, Mr. Olsen, we will try
24 to be more clear in our future orders. Sometimes.25 language is not clear, so when we do our intervenor
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
27 COLLOQUY
.1 funding, we'll try to be more specific about what we
2 really mean, maybe.
3 MR. STUTZMAN: Madam Chair.
4 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Stutzman.
5 MR. STUTZMAN: Just a technical point.
6 There are still three public hearings to be held and I
7 think the record won't be closed until that process is
8 completed.
9 COMMISSIONER SMITH: Thank you for
10 clarifying that, Mr. Stutzman. We will be having a
11 public hearing in Chubbuck, Idaho, next Tuesday evening
12 and in Twin Falls next Thursday evening and then some.
F
t
..
~
13 evening when I think I'm in an airplane there will be a
14 public hearing here in Boise, so you're right, the record
15 will not be closed until after, I believe, the 7th of
16 February.
17 All right, thank you for that
18 clarification. We're adj ourned for today.
19 (The Hearing adjourned at 10:45 a.m.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
28 COLLOQUY
.
.
.
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 AUTHENTICATION
2
3
4 This is to certify that the foregoing
5 proceedings held in the matter of the application of
6 Idaho Power Company for authority to increase its rates
7 and charges for electric service to electric customers in
8 the State of Idaho, commencing at 9:50 a.m., on
9 Wednesday, January 23, 2008, at the Commission Hearing
10 Room, 472 West Washington Street, Boise, Idaho, is a true
11 and correct transcript of said proceedings and the
12 original thereof for the file of the Commission.
13
14
15
16
-f óXs--Ltt d~,r,:CONSTANCE S. BUCY Ill:Certified Shorthand Reporter ~~
17
18
19
\\\\111""1',,\\ S Bi,"'i
""(j~ . vC' Ili"." ~ \\\\Hlllii.", ,.....: ~ ,'''''\'''R t~/"'''' ~
:: V .:::'. t' r ""/.. -:- ¡. .~ -, ',-.'(f :"'0 ~:.~ Z t'Z 0 ~ 0 ~::00. "';=t:::. \, """ PU~"./'-Q~:':
...... ';11:" ....-.,...'.." ...::.'"-' lll.,I\,...~ O~ ,// ~...'1,. STA'lO,,'"
..// ì; ¡ l i i í 1 \ \ \ \\ \'
CSB REPORTING
Wilder, Idaho 83676
29 AUTHENTICATION