20130327final_order_no_32769.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 27, 20 13
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA ) CASE NOS. AVU-E-12-08
UTILITIES FOR AUTHORITY TO ) AVU-G-12-07
INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR )
ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE ) ORDER NO. 32769
IN IDAHO 1
On October 11, 2012, Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities filed an Application
requesting authority to increase its electric base rates by $1 1.4 million (4.6%) and its natural gas
base rates by $4.6 million (7.2%). Application at 1. The Company proposed that the new rates
take effect on April 1, 20 13. See Amendment to Application. The Commission subsequently
suspended the proposed effective date for thirty days plus five months, or until the Commission
issues an earlier final order in the case. See Idaho Code § 61-622. The Commission also granted
intervention petitions filed by: Idaho Forest Group, LLC; Clearwater Paper Corporation;
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI); Idaho Conservation League
(ICL); and Snake River Alliance (SRA). See Order Nos. 32671, 32678, 32680 and 32687, and
32689.'
Settlement conferences occurred on January 17 and 24, 2013, and the Company,
Staff, Idaho Forest Group, Clearwater Paper, and ICL later filed a Stipulation and Settlement
("Settlement") that proposes to fully resolve the case. See Exh. 101 (attaching the proposed
Settlement); Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Settlement. Although intervenors CAPAI
and SRA initially did not sign the Settlement, they now fully support the Settlement and joined
in it through later filings. See SRA's Comments filed February 21, 2013, and CAPAI's Notice
of Joinder in Settlement filed February 25, 201 3.
Commission Staff held public informational workshops in Sandpoint and Moscow on
February 12 and 13, 20 13. The Commission also convened customer hearings in Lewiston and
1 The intervenors' petitions explain their interests in this case. ldaho Forest Group is an Avista electric customer that
receives service under Schedule 25 - Extra Large General Service. Clearwater Paper is an Avista electric and natural
gas customer that receives services under Tariff IPUC Nos. 27 (Natural Gas) and 28 (Electric). CAPAI represents
the interests of the Company's low-income customers. ICL is Idaho's largest state-based conservation organization
and has about 1,000 members who are residential customers of Avista. SRA represents clean energy interests,
including those of residential class customers.
ORDER NO. 32769 1
Coeur d'Alene on March 4 and 5. 2013, and a technical hearing in Boise on March 7, 2013. See
Notice of Public Workshops, Order No. 32740.
The evidentiary record in this case is now closed. Having thoroughly reviewed that
record. we summarize the Application, proposed Settlement, comments and testimony, make
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and enter this Order approving the Settlement.
THE APPLICATION
Avista generates, transmits, and distributes electric power, and distributes natural gas
in parts of eastern and central Washington and northern Idaho. It also distributes natural gas in
northeast and southwest Oregon. The Commission approved the Company's existing Idaho rates
and charges on September 30, 201 1, and they took effect in October 201 1. Application at 2-3,
citing Order No. 32371.
In its Application, the Company claims its existing rates are not fair, just, and
reasonable, and that it must increase rates and revenues to enable it to earn a fair return on its
investment. 'The Company seeks an 8.46% rate of return, which includes a 50% equity ratio, a
6.02% pro forma cost of debt, and a 10.9% return on equity. Id at 3-4. The Company's
proposed percentage increases by rate schedule for electric and natural gas service are reflected
in the tables below:
Proposed Electric Increase by Percentage
1 1 Proposed Increase 1
Service Schedule
Residential Service Schedule 1
in Billed Revenues
5.3%
General Service Schedules 1 1 & 12
L a r ~ e General Service Schedules 21 & 22
4.1%
4.8% "
Extra Large General Service Schedule 25
Extra 1,aree General Service Schedule 25P
Overall Increase --.A- 4.6'/0 1
3.9%
3.3%
Pumping Service Schedules 3 1 & 32
Street & Area Lighting Schedules 41 -48
ORDER NO. 32769
5.7%
4.5%
Proposed Natural Gas Increase by Percentage
I I Proposed Increase I
I
Transportation Service Schedule 146
Service Schedule
General Service Schedule 101
Large General Service Schedule 1 1 1
Interru~tible Sales Service Schedule 13 1
in Billed Revenues
7.8%
5.7%
5.9%
See Morris Direct at 19-20.
In the Application, the Company says its evidence supporting the requested rate
increase is based on a 12-month test year ending June 30, 2012, and that the following
investment-and-expense increases drive its need for rate relief (1) increases in net plant
investment (including return on investment, depreciation and taxes, and offset by the tax benefit
of interest); and (2) increases in distribution, operation and maintenance, and administrative and
general expenses, which are partially offset by reduced net power supply and transmission
expenditures. Application at 3-4.
The Company explains that much of its requested rate relief is driven by increased
costs associated with the need to expand and replace its aging utility infrastructure, and its
obligation to reliably serve customers. Id. at 5. Notably, the Company plans to make $500
million in capital expenditures from 20 12-20 13 to account for customer growth, investment in
generation upgrades and transmission and distribution facilities, and maintenance and
replacements of the Company's natural gas systems. The Company plans to make $1.2 billion in
capital expenditures through December 3 1,2016. Id. at 6.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
After the Company filed its Application, the parties engaged in settlement
negotiations that resulted in the proposed settlement. In summary, the proposed Settlement that
is signed or otherwise supported by all parties to the case proposes to fully resolve the case as
follows:
A. Overview of Proposed Settlement and Revenue Requirement
The parties agree that Avista should recover its revenue requirement in two steps.
After the two-step process occurs, Avista will not file another electric or natural gas general rate
(excluding natural gas costs)
Overall Increase
ORDER NO. 32769
12.8%
7.3%
case before May 3 1, 2014, and new rates arising from that filing will not go into effect before
January 1.201 5. The tmo steps are:
Electric
Step I: April 1, 2013
a. No electric base rate change effective April 1, 2013, instead of the
proposed 4.6%, or $1 1.393 million.
,Step 2: October 1, 2013
a. Overall electric base rate increase of 3.1% (3.2% in billed rates) or $7.825
million effective October 1, 201 3.
b. Offsets - Apply $3.865 million for rate mitigation purposes (the
Bonneville Power Administration ("BPA") Parallel Operation
settlement2), and amortize that offset over 15 months, from October 1,
201 3 to December 3 1,20 14.
c. Net overall increase to customers of 1.9% effective October 1, 20 13.
Natural Gas
Step I: April 1, 201 3
a. Overall natural gas rate increase of 4.9% (5.0% in billed rates) or
$3.1 15 million, instead of the proposed 7.2%, or $4.561 million, effective
April I, 2013.
a. Overall natural gas base rate increase of 2.0% (2.0% in billed rates) or
$1.330 million effective October I, 201 3.
b. Offsets - Apply $1.550 million Purchased Gas Adjustment ("PGA")~
deferral credit balance from 2012 PGA to partially offset the base rate
L The BPA Settlement Revenue of $3.865 million represents the Idaho customers' share of $12.224 million (system)
for the past use of Avista's transmission system for the period January 2005 through February 2013. In December
2012, Avista and the BPA reached a settlement that pertains to the BPA's use of Avista's transmission system.
Avista anticipates FERC approval ofthe settlement in February 2013, after which Avista will bill the BPA.
The PGA mechanism is used to adjust rates to reflect annual changes in the Company's costs for the purchase of
natural gas from suppliers - including transportation, storage, and other related costs.
ORDER NO. 32769 4
increase, amortized over 15 months, October 1, 201 3 to December 31,
2014.'
c. Net overall bill impact to customers of 0.3% effective October I , 201 3.
B. Cost of Capital
The parties agree to a 9.8% return on equity and the following capital structure and
rate of return:
Capital Pro Forma Pro Forma
Component Structure Cost Weighted Cost
Total Debt 50.00% 6.01 % 3.01%
Common Equity 50.00% 9.80% 4.90%
Total 1 00.00% 7.9 1 %
The Company will refund to customers one-half of any earnings above the 9.8% return on equity
for each of the years 201 3 and 2014, to allay any concerns that the base rate relief in April 1,
201 3, and October I, 201 3, may allow the Company to exceed its authorized return.
C. Percentage Increase by Service Schedule
The following tables reflect the agreed upon percentage increase by schedule for
electric and natural gas service:
1 Residential Schedule 1 - .-
I
General Service Schedule 1.9%
Electric Increase - ....... Percenta~ .-- b&hedule - October 1,2013
-7
1 Large General Service Schedule 21 /22 . 1 --- 3.3% 2.1 %
I Extra Large General Service Schedule 25 1 2.7% 1 1.0% 1
Increase in Net Increase in
4 111 Case No. AVIJ-(3-12-05, the Commission approved Staff's proposal that about $1.55 million in
unrefunded credit balances be held back due to the Company's filing of a "Notice of Intent to File a General
Rate Case." The Commission stated that "the resulting $1.55 million iln-refunded credit balance will help
mitigate potential rate increases and provide rate stability for customers." See Order No. 3265 1 at 6.
Rate Schedule 1 Billing Rates 1
' Clearwater Paper Schedule 25P
Pumping Service Schedule 3 1 /2 1
Street & Area Lights Schedules
Overall
ORDER NO. 32769 5
2.3%
3.9%
3.1%
3.1%
0.4%
2.9%
2.7%
1.9%
Natural Gas Increase Percentage by Schedule -April 1,2013
/ Increase in / Net Increase in / 1 Rate Schedule ! Base Rates Billing Rates 1 t- - ------ . ---- --
1 General Serk ice Schedule 1 01 7-53./,- '-- -Tg--
General Service Schedule 1 1 1/112 3 -8%
Sales Service Schedule 13 111 32 / 4.0%
3.9%
4.0%
Service Schedule 146
k n e r a l Service Schedule 1 0 1 -i- 016% '-1 L
2.1 %
8.7% 1 !J'7 1 4.9%
Natural Gas Increase Percentage by Schedule - October 1,2013
General Service Schedule 1 1 1/112 I -0.5%
Sales Service Schedule 13 1/132 i -1.4%
Net Increase in
Billing 1 Rates Rate Schedule
As noted above, Commission Staff, the Company, Idaho Forest Group, Clearwater
Increase in
Base Rates
'Transportation -- Service Schedule 146 -- 1 3.5%
Overall 1 2.0%
Paper, and ICL signed the Settlement Stipulation, and CAPAI and SRA later supported and
3.5%
0.3%
joined in it.
COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY OF PARTIES
Commission Staff, CAPAI, SRA, and the Company testified or otherwise filed
position statements supporting the Settlement. These parties' positions are summarized below.
A. The Company
The Company testified that the Settlement is in the public interest and a fair, just and
reasonable compromise of the parties' positions. Tr. p. 3. The Company stressed that the parties
signed the Settlement after an extensive investigation, which included a week long, onsite audit
by Commission Staff' and Company responses to more than 270 production requests from Staff
and intervenors. Tr. p. 29.
The Company explained why the Settlement is in the public interest. First, the
Settlement is the product of the give-and-take of negotiation that produced a just and reasonable
end result. Second, it is supported by evidence demonstrating the need for rate adjustments to
provide recovery of necessary expenditures and investment, the costs of which are not offset by a
growth in sales margins. Third, it enjoys broad-based support from the variety of constituencies
represented in this case. Fourth, it provides base rate certainty over the next two years
ORDER NO. 32769 6
(201 3/2014), which benefits all customers as they plan and budget for their needs. Fifth, it
breaks the yearly cycle of rate filings by prohibiting Avista from changing base rates again
before January 1, 201 5. Sixth, the impact of the base rate increases in Step 2, effective October
1, 201 3, is partly mitigated by the amortization of the BPA settlement payment for electric and
the PGA deferral credit balance for natural gas. Seventh, the "stay-out" provision-which
prevents additional changes to base rates until 201 5-will challenge A\ ista to manage its costs to
have the opportunity to earn the agreed-upon return on equity. Finally, to allay any concerns that
Avista might over-earn during the 201 3/2014 rate-effective period, the Stipulation requires
Avista to refund to customers 50% of any earnings above the 9.8% agreed-upon return on equity
during the rate-effective period. Tr. pp. 30-3 1.
B. CAPAI
CAPAI did not initially sign the Settlement because it wanted more time to
investigate whether the proposed Settlement was in the best interests of its constituents. After
conducting its investigation, CAPAI determined that the Settlement is in the best interests of
Avista's low-income ratepayers and all ratepayers in general. See CAPAI'S Notice of Joinder in
Settlement at 2. CAPAI now unconditionally supports and joins in the Settlement. I . ; Tr. p.
113.
C. The SRA
SRA analyzed the Settlement by focusing on the magnitude and timing of the base
rate increases; adjustments to Avista's electric revenue requirement; how much time should pass
between the resolution of this general rate case and the filing of the next one; and treatment of
the expected BPA settlement revenue as an offset to a portion of the base rate increase; and rate
spread of the base rate changes. See SRA Comments at 1 . The SRA said the Settlement
satisfactorily resolves these and other issues. SRA thus concurs that the Settlement is fair, just,
and reasonable and in the public interest, and it joins the parties in requesting that the
Commission accept the Settlement. Id.
D. Commission Staff
Staff entered the Settlement only after thoroughly reviewing "the Company's
application, detailed identification of adjustments, two settlement workshops, and thoughtful
assessment of settlement alternatives . . . ." Tr. p. 79. Staff began analyzing the Company's
ORDER NO. 32769
Application on April 29,2012, and 21 Staff members were assigned to the case.' Tr. p. 85. Staff
submitted 199 formal production requests to the Company and numerous formal and informal
audit requests. Staff also reviewed Avista's last rate case filings in Washington, including over
300 data requests and responses. Id. Further, three Staff accountants conducted a week long
onsite audit of Company books and reviewed external auditor workpapers. Id. Staff said it fully
and aggressively pursued what it believes is the best outcome, and that before settling it "did
everything that [it] would have done had [it]" gone to a full hearing before the Commission. Tr.
p. 110.
Staff testified that it focused on adjusting five areas of the Company's proposed
electric revenue requirement: (1) rate of return; (2) power supply expenses; (3) 20 12/20 13 capital
investment and Operations & Maintenance expenses; (4) salaries; and (5) miscellaneous test year
expenses. Tr. p. 87. Staff also applied most of these adjustments to the Company's proposed
natural gas revenue requirement. Tr. p. 89. Staff noted that it had completed its investigation
and identified all potential adjustments before beginning settlement negotiations. Tr. pp. 90-91.
Staff compared the Settlement's benefits to the relief initially requested in Avista's
Application. The Company's Application proposed increasing annual electric revenue by
$1 1.393 million (or 4.6%) and annual natural gas revenue by $4.56 1 million (or 7.2%), effective
April 1, 2013. Tr. pp. 82-83. The Application also requested a 10.9% return on equity with an
8.46% overall rate of return. Tr. p. 83. In contrast, the Settlement specifies a lesser, 9.8% return
on equity and 7.91% overall rate of return, which Staff attests is a reasonable compromise and
the same return on equity that was recently approved in Washington. Tr. p. 97. Additionally, the
Settlement provides for no electric rate increase on April 1, 201 3, and a lesser, $7.825 million (or
3.2%) annual electric revenue increase October 1,201 3. Tr. p. 83. Staff said the Settlement thus
increases annually electric revenue by about 68% of the Company's originally proposed electric
increase, and delays implementation of an electric rate increase for six months. Id. Under the
Settlement, annual natural gas revenues would increase by $3.12 million (or 4.92%) on April 1,
2013, and by $1.33 million (or 2.0%) on October 1,201 3. Staff said the proposed, April 1, 201 3
increase in natural gas revenue is also about 68% of what the Company's originally requested.
Staff said the April 1, 2013, natural gas increase combines with the October 1, 2013, natural gas
5 Although the Company did not file its Application until October 2012, by August 10, 2012, it had notified the
Commission that it would be filing such an Application. See Notice of Intent to File a General Rate Case. This
advance Notice is required by Commission Rule of Procedure 122.
ORDER NO. 32769 8
increase for an ultimate natural increase of about 98% of what the Company originally proposed.
Id. Staff stressed that a key difference between the Company's original proposal and the
Settlement is that the Settlement prohibits additional base rate increases through January 1,201 5.
Id. Staff testified that without the Settlement, the Company could have filed three more general
rate cases before the stipulated January 1,2015, stay-out date. Tr. pp. 83-84.
Staff strove to achieve the best outcome for customers with respect to base rates in
this case and with respect to base rate increases that might otherwise occur due to additional
general rate flings during the Settlement stay-out period. Tr. pp. 94-95. Further, although Staff
identified significant adjustments to propose at hearing, Staff acknowledged it is unlikely that
Staff would have prevailed on all or most of them. Further, Staff said that even if it prevailed on
other adjustments here, doing so would only delay Avista's recovery until the next rate case and
would likely ensure that Avista would immediately file one or more new rate cases. Tr. p. 95.
Staff noted that the Settlement document here is more transparent than past settlements in that it
outlines the agreed-upon adjustments and shows exactly what is and is not included in rates. Tr.
p. 110.
Staff testified, based on its investigation and analysis, that the proposed, multi-phase,
two-year Settlement is fair, just, and reasonable and in the public interest. Consequently, the
Commission should approve it. Tr. p. 79.
CUSTOMER COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY
Sixteen Avista customers testified or filed written comments in this case. The
Commission appreciates the time and effort extended by these customers. Customers opposed
the rate increases proposed in the Application and in the Settlement. Some customers suggested
the Company cut back on employee compensation and use that money to pay for infrastructure
improvements. Customers explained that the difficult economic environment, including lost jobs
and reduced incomes, makes any rate increase a hardship. Testimony at the March 5, 2013
customer hearing, in particular, stressed that a rate increase will negatively impact senior citizens
and other customers who have low or fixed incomes. Tr. pp. 9-1 8.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
A. Standard of Review
The Commission's process for considering settlement stipulations is set forth in
Procedural Rules 27 1-277. IDAPA 3 1.0 1.0 1.27 1-277. When a settlement is presented to the
ORDER NO. 32769 9
Commission, the Commission will prescribe the procedures appropriate to the nature of the
settlement to consider it. In this case, the Commission convened both a technical hearing and
public customer hearings on the Settlement. IDAPA 31.01.01.274. The purpose of an
evidentiary hearing on a settlement is "to consider the reasonableness of the settlement and
whether acceptance of the settlement is just, fair, and reasonable, in the public interest, or
otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory policy." IDAPA 3 1 .O1 .01.274. Proponents of a
proposed settlement must show that the settlement is reasonable, in the public interest, or
otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory policy. IDAPA 3 1 .O1 .01.275. Finally, the
Commission is not bound by settlement agreements. Instead, the Commission "will
independently review any settlement proposed to it to determine whether the settlement is just,
fair and reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory
policy." IDAPA 3 1.01 .01.276.
B. Commission Findings
In this case, all parties advocate that the Settlement is just, fair, and reasonable. The
parties assert that the Stipulation and Settlement represents a reasonable resolution of disputed
issues and that it is in the public interest for the Commission to approve the Settlement.
Based upon our review of the Settlement, the testimony, and the public comments, we
find that the record is comprehensive and further proceedings are not necessary. After reviewing
this record, we find the Settlement is fair, just and reasonable. The Settlement represents a
reasonable compromise of the positions held by the parties and we find it is in the public interest.
IDAPA 3 1 .O1 .01.274-276.
The Company initially applied to increase revenue from electric and natural gas
service by $1 1.4 million (4.6%) and $4.6 million (7.2%), with all rate increases taking effect on
April 1, 201 3. The Company also filed supporting testimony with which to justify its requests.
Commission Staff thoroughly analyzed the Application and identified potential adjustments that
could be made. But Staff acknowledged that it might not have prevailed on all or most of the
identified adjustments if the matter had proceeded to a full hearing. The parties-including
intervenors representing a wide array of customer interests-opted to compromise and settle.
Under the Settlement, there will be no electric increase in April 2013. Rather, a much smaller,
$7.825 million (or 3.2%) electric increase is delayed for about six months, until October 1,2013.
Further, under the Settlement annual natural gas revenues increase by $3.12 million (or 4.92%)
ORDER NO. 32769
on April 1, 201 3, and by $1.33 million (or 2.0%) on October 1, 2013. After this, the Settlement
prohibits additional base rate increases through January 1, 2015. The Settlement represents a
significant reduction in Avista's requested revenue increase. Moreover, the stay-out provision
prohibiting any new electric or natural gas base rate increase before January 1, 201 5, provides an
extended period of rate stability that might not otherwise occur.
On the record in this case, we find the stipulated $7.825 million electric revenue
increase, effective October 1, 201 3, and the $3.12 million and $1.33 million natural gas revenue
increases, effective April 1, 2013, and October 1, 201 3, to be just, fair and reasonable. These
increases and the moratorium on new rate increases until January 1, 201 5, provide appropriate
rate relief for the Company while providing reasonable rate stability to customers. The
Commission appreciates the parties' work on the Settlement, and their ability to resolve all of the
issues in this case.
INTERVENOR FUNDING
On March 20, 2013, CAPAI petitioned the Commission for an $8,115.00 intervenor
funding award. See CAPAI's Petition for Intervenor Funding. Intervenor funding is available
under Idaho Code 5 61-61 7A, which declares it is the "policy of [Idaho] to encourage
participation at all stages of all proceedings before this Commission so that all affected
customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings." The statute empowers the
Commission to order any regulated utility with intrastate annual revenues exceeding $3.5 million
to pay all or a portion of the costs of one or more parties for legal fees, witness fees and
reproduction costs not to exceed a total for all intervening parties combined of $40,000. Id. The
Commission must consider the following factors when deciding whether to award intervenor
funding:
(a) A finding that the participation of the intervenor has materially contributed
to the decision rendered by the Commission;
(b) A finding that the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and
would be a significant financial hardship for the intervenor;
(c) The recommendation made by the intervenor differed materially from the
testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and
(d) The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of
concern to the general body of users or consumers.
ORDER NO. 32769
Iu'aho Code 5 6 1-6 1 7A(2).
To obtain an intervenor funding award. an intervenor must comply with Commission
Rules of Procedure 161 through 165. Rule 162 provides the form and content for the petition.
IDAPA 31 .01.01.162.
The Commission finds that CAPAI's Petition satisfies the intervenor funding
requirements. CAPAI intervened and participated in two settlement workshops and uniquely
focused on residential rate design issues. CAPAI obtained and analyzed low-income
consumption data and tried to assess how different rate designs might impact low-income
residential customers. CAPAI ultimately joined in the Settlement even though the Settlement did
not propose residential rate design changes. But before doing so, CAPAI analyzed the current
rate design and proposed Settlement to ensure it would not disproportionately and adversely
affect low-income interests. CAPAI recommended that the Commission encourage Avista, Staff,
and other utilities to begin, or enhance ongoing efforts, to track and maintain consumption data
for the low-income sector of the residential class for the purpose of examining rate design in
greater detail in future rate cases.
The Commission finds that CAPAI has materially contributed to the Commission's
decision. CAPAI's recommendation materially differs from Staff-s testimony and exhibits, and
CAPAI'S participation addressed issues of concern to the general body of customers. Finally,
the documentation of the costs and fees incurred by CAPAI establishes that the request is
reasonable in amount, and that CAPAI would suffer financial hardship if the request is not
approved. Accordingly, we approve an award of intervenor funding to CAPAI in the amount of
$8'1 15.00.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Company is an electrical and gas corporation providing service to the public
within the State of Idaho, Idaho Code 5 61 -1 17, 61 -1 19, and is operating as a public utility.
Idaho Code 5 61-129.
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter as authorized by Title 61 of the
Idaho Code, and more particularly Idaho Code $5 61 -501,61-502, 61 -503, 61-520.61 -523.
The Commission finds that the Company's existing rates are unreasonable, and that
the rates approved in this Order are fair, just and reasonable. Iduho Code 5 61 -622.
ORDER NO. 32769
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Company's and Staffs Joint Motion for
Approval of Stipulation and Settlement is granted; the Commission approves the Stipulation and
Settlement supported by all parties.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company shall file tariffs to implement rates as
set forth in the Stipulation and Settlement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CAPAI's Petition for Intervenor Funding is
granted in the amount of $8,115.00.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code 5 6 1-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 17X
day of March 201 3. 6 ,/
P A ~ L KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT
MACK A R E D ~ O R ~ COMMISSIONER
i
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
ORDER NO. 32769