20111121CAPAI to IPC 1-21.pdf

CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 1

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR ) CASE NO. IPC-E-11-08
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES )
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE )
TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF ) COMMUNITY ACTION
IDAHO ) PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
) TION OF IDAHO’S RESPONSES
) TO IDAHO POWER’S FIRST
) DISCOVERY REQUESTS
)
____________________________________________)

COMES NOW, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI)
and hereby responds to Idaho Power’s First Production Requests to CAPAI as follows:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please provide a copy of all analyses, materials, and
workpapers created or relied upon by Ms. Ottens in preparing her testimony.
RESPONSE: Please see the materials appended hereto as Attachment “A” and Attachment
“B.” Other materials relied upon by Ms. Ottens consist of readily accessible public documents
and are identified elsewhere in these responses.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please provide a copy of all analyses, materials,
and workpapers created or relied upon by Ms. Ottens in preparing her testimony concerning rate
of return.
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 2

RESPONSE: See Response to Request for Production No. 1. As her testimony makes clear,
Ms. Ottens did not propose a specific rate of return for the Company in this proceeding1 and does
not profess to possess expertise in the calculation of authorized rates of return for regulated
public utilities.2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: On page 23, line 15 of her testimony, Ms. Ottens
refers to “an average 20 year waiting list for these applicants.” Please explain what inputs were
used in this calculation and the formula by which this number was derived.
RESPONSE: CAPAI’s response to this request is based on that chart appended hereto as
Attachment A titled “Agency Wait List Information, June 2011.” The inputs are found in the
first and third columns of the attachment (labeled as “Number On Waiting List” and “2008 Pre
AARA Annual Production,” respectively). The formula consists of dividing the third column
into the first. This chart, by its nature, includes data that is dynamic and provides a snapshot in
time for illustrative purposes.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please provide the actual number of applicants on
the Idaho State Weatherization Assistance Program (“WAP”) wait list. Of these applicants, how
many qualify for Idaho Power’s Weatherization Assistance for Qualified Customers (“WAQC”)
Program?
RESPONSE: CAPAI objects to this request on the basis that it contains words or terms that
are vague, undefined, and speculative and the request is compound without subsections. Without
waiving this objection, CAPAI notes that the total number of customers waiting for
weatherization service under WAP is found in the first column of Attachment “A” as of the date
the chart was created.

1 See, Testimony of Teri Ottens, p. 11, ln. 20.
2 Id., p. 26, ln.3, p. 11, ln. 12.
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 3

Regarding the second part of this question, CAPAI responds that it is not possible to state
with certainty the precise number of customers on the WAP wait list who will ultimately
“qualify” for assistance under WAQC. It is unclear what the Company means by the word
“qualify.” WAP consists of two components; funds obtained from the Department of Energy
and funds obtained from public electric utilities such as Idaho Power (through WAQC). When a
person applies for low-income weatherization assistance, an initial determination is made as to
that person’s eligibility under the two components of WAP. Which of the two sources the funds
ultimately come from, if at all, depends on numerous factors. Customers on the WAP wait list
are prioritized depending on the nature and severity of their circumstances. Further, customers’
financial and other circumstances often change and a person on the WAP list might be or become
ineligible for WAQC for any number of reasons. Other customers on the WAP wait list who
initially weren’t eligible for WAQC might later become so. It is impossible to predict these
changes. In any event, customers who receive assistance under WAQC must have their
households audited prior to receiving that assistance to ensure compliance with WAQC’s
conditions and limitations at the time the weatherization measures are installed.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: On page 23, lines 14-15 of her testimony, Ms.
Ottens states that [in] Ada County alone there are 6000 homes that are eligible for WAQC
funding.” Based on current levels of funding, this equate[s] to an average 20 year waiting list for
these applicants (emphasis added). Have the occupants of these 6000 homes actually been
qualified to participate in WAQC?
RESPONSE: See objection and response to request No. 4. CAPAI cannot fully answer this
question without the term “qualify” defined. It is impossible to know whether a customer will
receive WAQC benefits until they have gone through the home audit process. Some customers
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 4

on the waiting list drop off for many different reasons. Other customers are added to the waiting
list. The estimates of customers in need of low-income weatherization made by Ms. Ottens is a
snapshot in time. In addition, the CAP agency “El-Ada” does not carry-over weatherization
applicants from one year to the next. Applications must be renewed every year. El-Ada takes in,
on average, 6000 applications annually. Incidentally, to clarify, the 6000 customer figure
includes a very minimal amount of customers living in Elmore County. The number of
customers is too small to materially alter Ms. Ottens’ testimony in any respect.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Have the 6000 homes/occupants referenced above in
Request For Production No. 5 been qualified for WAP or are they automatically placed on the
WAQC waiting list based solely upon their eligibility?
RESPONSE: CAPAI again objects to the undefined use of the word “qualify,” and to the
confusing nature of this request. Without waiving this objection, to be eligible for WAQC,
customers must meet income eligibility, have not been previously weatherized within a specific
time frame, and have a primary heating source of electricity.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Must applicants on the 20-year waiting list apply
annually to participate in WAP? Do the applications of unserved applicants carry over from
year- to-year? Please explain.
RESPONSE: As set forth in CAPAI’s response to request No. 5, applicants served by El-Ada
must apply for WAP benefits annually. There is no carry-over. For the other CAP agencies, a
person’s name can remain on a list that is carried over to the next year, but that application must
be re-reviewed to ensure eligibility prior to installation of weatherization measures.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Do Community Action Partnership (“CAP”)
agencies automatically enroll Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (“LIHEAP”)
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 5

recipients in WAP or do CAP agencies allow LIHEAP recipients to apply separately? Please
explain.
RESPONSE: No. LIHEAP recipients are not automatically enrolled in WAP. Participation
in WAP is a second and separate step in the intake process.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: How many of the applicants on the WAP wait list
live in tribal territory? Of these, how many that live in Idaho Power’s service territory qualify
for WAQC?
RESPONSE: CAPAI objects to this request on the basis that the terms “tribal territory” and
“qualify” are undefined. Without waiving this objection, CAPAI responds that, to the best of its
knowledge, the CAP agencies that provide services within Idaho Power’s service territory do not
track people on the WAP wait list, including those who “qualify” for WAQC, on the basis that
they reside in “tribal territory.”
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: For each year from 2005 to the present, how
many people applied for WAQC?
RESPONSE: As already explained, people do not separately apply for WAQC; they apply for
low-income weatherization assistance. A determination of whether they ultimately are entitled
to receive WAQC assistance is made after their application is reviewed, the numerous criteria are
satisfied and a home audit is conducted ensuring compliance with WAQC’s conditions and
limitations.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: For each year from 2005 to the present, how
many WAQC applicants were in fact qualified to receive service?
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 6

RESPONSE: CAPAI objects to this request on the basis that the term “qualified” is
undefined. Without waiving this objection, CAPAI refers the Company to response to request
No. 4.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: For each year from 2005 to the present, what
number of WAQC recipients on the waiting list resulted in projects benefitting Idaho Power
customers?
RESPONSE: CAPAI objects to this request on the basis that it is vague and contains terms,
(including “projects benefitting Idaho Power customers”) that are undefined and subjective. It
would require substantial speculation, therefore, for CAPAI to respond to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: For each year from 2005 to the present, how
many applicants on the WAQC waiting list were found to not be qualified due to use of a heat
source other than electricity provided by Idaho Power?
RESPONSE: CAPAI reiterates its objection to the undefined term “qualified.” Without
waiving this objection, CAPAI notes that customers who do not use a heat source provided by
Idaho Power (i.e., electricity) are not eligible for WAQC assistance.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: How many applicants are on the WAP wait list
for non-Idaho Power fuel vendors (e.g., wood, propane, natural gas)?
RESPONSE: CAPAI is in the process of splitting out the number of customers on the WAP
wait list based on their primary heat source and, to the extent that it can be split out, will provide
this information as soon as it is available.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: On page 14, lines 16-17, Ms. Ottens states that:
“CAPAI seeks the $1.5 million increase necessary to simply bring Idaho Power into relative
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 7

parity with AVISTA.” Please provide all studies and other documentation demonstrating that
this level of funding is necessary to satisfy the need for low-income weatherization.
RESPONSE: The level of funding increase sought will not completely “satisfy the need” for
low-income weatherization. In addition to the Attachments referenced herein and included with
these responses, Ms. Ottens relied upon data readily accessible to any member of the public
including electric public utility annual reports found on the Commission’s website as well as the
Commission’s 2009 Annual Report.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please provide all studies and other
documentation demonstrating that the need for low-income weatherization in the AVISTA,
Rocky Mountain Power, and Idaho Power service territories is proportional to the amount of
weatherization assistance funding provided by each utility.
RESPONSE: Please refer to CAPAI’s response to request No. 15. In addition, Ms. Ottens
relied upon each utility’s own annual report to the Commission.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Did the existence of Idaho Power’s
Weatherization Solutions Program in any way impact the amount of WAQC funding requested
by CAPAI? If so, how?
RESPONSE: No. CAPAI is not yet fully familiar with this program, including its features
and possible benefits. CAPAI was not involved in the implementation of this program but notes
that it apparently is designed to assist customers who are above the various low-income
thresholds for various low-income assistance programs such as LIHEAP and WAQC. The
program is still in the pilot stage and CAPAI does not yet know what, if any, impact it will have
on those customers whose interests CAPAI represents.
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 8

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Is it CAPAI’s intent to set WAQC funding at a
level that will eliminate the WAP list? Please explain.
RESPONSE: No. Such an intention is inconceivable in light of the current state of the
economy, and the fact that the ranks of the poor are swelling and typical housing stock of low-
income customers continues to deteriorate. Furthermore, as already explained, WAQC is only
one of two components comprising WAP. Federal funds received through the Department of
Energy are substantially greater than funds provided by Idaho’s three electric public utilities,
especially at their current levels of funding. WAQC remains an important adjunct, however, to
the very limited resources available to help the poor.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: If CAPAI felt that the level of low-income
weatherization fund was insufficient during the years of 2003-2010, why did it not request
increased funding during that time period?
RESPONSE: CAPAI has sought low-income weatherization funding increases from Idaho
Power during the stated time period. CAPAI references and incorporates herein the testimony of
Ms. Teri Ottens filed in this case on October 7, 2011 (specifically, p. 15, ln. 9 through p. 16, ln.
14) for a thorough discussion of this point. In addition, please refer to CAPAI’s response to the
following request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: If CAPAI felt that the level of low-income
weatherization fund was insufficient in 2007, why did it not request increased funding when both
parties filed a joint application in Case No. IPC-E-07-09 to extend funding at $1.2 million?
RESPONSE: As the Company is already aware, the Commission, in Order No. 29505 issued
on May 25, 2004 in Case No. IPC-E-03-13, ordered Idaho Power, over its objection, to increase
funding to its Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program (LIWA) to a total level of $1.2
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 9

million “for each of the next three years.”3 This brought Idaho Power’s LIWA funding to
relative parity with AVISTA. The increased low-income weatherization funding ordered by the
Commission, therefore, was effective only through 2007. In its final Order, the Commission
ruled: “[t]o continue these funds [LIWA] beyond June 1, 2007, CAPAI must file an application
to extend LIWA funding in early 2007.”4 The Commission’s approval of the increased LIWA
funding level was conditioned upon annual reports by the Company, among other things.5
This Commission-ordered filing resulted in the joint application between CAPAI and
Idaho Power in Case No. IPC-E-07-09, proposing to continue LIWA. Both the Company and
CAPAI agreed that LIWA had proven to be a much-needed and prudent program and that it
should continue without any specific expiration date. For its part, the Company understandably
desired a formal ruling from the Commission authorizing continuation of LIWA. The
Commission approved the joint application on June 25, 2007 in Order No. 30350.
Thus, the nature of the filing in Case No. IPC-E-07-09 was somewhat unique and was
more in the nature of a collaborative effort between CAPAI and the Company whose respective
objectives seemed harmonious at that time.
During this same period of time, CAPAI was seeking low-income weatherization funding
increases from Rocky Mountain Power whose funding level was below that of Idaho Power and
AVISTA. As in this case, CAPAI recognized the importance to the utilities and their ratepayers
of seeking parity in LIWA funding between the utilities. Combined with Idaho Power’s ready
willingness to extend its own program in 2007, CAPAI focused on seeking increased funding for
Rocky Mountain and deferred, for the time being, seeking an increase in funding from Idaho
Power. CAPAI did this even knowing that the Company’s funding level was insufficient to

3 Order No. 29505 at p. 32.
4 Id. at p. 33.
5 Id.
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 10

eliminate the disparity between Idaho Power’s funding level and customer need for the program.
CAPAI’s actions were consistent with the principle of parity identified in Ms. Ottens’ testimony.
Since that time, Idaho Power’s funding levels have dropped well below AVISTA’s and below
Rocky Mountain Power’s. This is explained in Ms. Ottens’ testimony.
Had CAPAI sought and obtained increased funding from Idaho Power in 2007 as posited
by the request, it would have required an even greater increase in Rocky Mountain’s funding to
bring that utility into parity. Thus, CAPAI’s decisions regarding when to seek LIWA funding
increases have been the product of a well-reasoned, sequentially logical approach.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please identify the expert retained by CAPAI to
analyze the Rocky Mountain Power evaluation study referenced on page 25 of Ms. Ottens’
testimony.
RESPONSE: The expert retained by CAPAI to analyze the Rocky Mountain Power
evaluation study is Mr. Roger Colton.
Dated, this 11th day of November, 2011.

__________________________________
Brad M. Purdy

CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 11th day of November, 2011 I served a copy
of the foregoing document on the following by electronic mail.

Lisa D. Nordstrom
Donovan E. Walker
Jason B. Williams
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Gregory W. Said
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]

Donald L. Howell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Eric L. Olsen
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
[e-mail]

Anthony Yankel
29814 Bay Village, OH 44140
[e-mail]

Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
515 N. 27th St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 12

[e-mail]

Don Reading
6070 Hill Rd.
Boise, ID 83703
[e-mail]

Arthur Perry Bruder
United States Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington D.C. 20585
[e-mail]

Kurt J. Boehm
36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510
Cincinnati, OH 45202
[e-mail]

Thorvald A. Nelson
Holland & Hart
6380 S. Fiddlers Green Circle
Suite 500
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
[e-mail]

Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]

Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
P.O. Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
[e-mail]

Nancy Hirsch
NW Energy Coalition
811 1st Ave., Suite 305
Seattle, WA 98104
[e-mail]

Dean J. Miller
420 E. Bannock
Boise, ID 83702
CAPAI RESPONSE TO IDAHO POWER FIRST PRODUCTION REQUESTS 13

[e-mail]

Scott Paul, CEO
Hoku Materials, Inc.
One Hoku Way
Pocatello, ID 83204
[e-mail]

DATED, this 11th day of November, 2011.

_________________________________
Brad M. Purdy