20121221Petition for Funding.pdf

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
2!2DEC2t AM 9:t 4 8
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION'S )
INQUIRY INTO THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS )
AND FUNDING OF LOW INCOME )
WEATHERIZATION AND ENERGY )
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS FOR )
ELECTRIC UTILITIES )
CASE NOS. C I
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOC-
IATION OF IDAHO'S
APPLICATION FOR
INTERVENOR FUNDING
I. INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 3 1.01.01, as well as Order No. 32673 issued in this proceeding (the "workshop case") on
November 2, 2012, and Order No. 32440 issued on January 18, 2012 in Case No. PAC-E-1 1-13
(the "11-13 case"), petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the above-
captioned proceeding.
Because this application is based in part on CAPAI's application for intervenor funding in
the 11-13 case, which is now closed, CAPAI hereby incorporates by reference its application for
funding in the 11-13 case, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
II. BACKGROUND
As the commission is well aware, LIWA programs are the most significant utility-funded,
low-income programs that exist. They have, therefore, been the main focus of CAPAI's
involvement in proceedings before this commission, now extending well in excess of a decade.
In that time, the Commission has consistently noted the value of LIWA programs, not just to
low-income customers, but as a legitimate conservation resource with benefits that inure to all
ratepayers. Although there has never been a precise mechanism specified by the Commission for
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
valuing these benefits in the context of a strict cost-effectiveness test, the Commission itself has
long recognized the inherent added value of assisting those customers at the economic margin of
being able to avoid disconnection due to inability to pay their bills (e.g., the avoided costs of
disconnections, reconnections, etc.).
The CAP agencies have done a commendable job of providing weatherization services to
low-income customers and to maximize the energy savings resulting from those services and
measures. CAPAI has never disputed that LIWA programs must meet some reasonable manner
of cost-effectiveness test, and until last year, that test was effectively the savings-to-investment
ratio (S.I.R.) required by the US Department of Energy (DOE). This ratio requires that each
measure installed in a home must save $1.00 of energy for each $1.00 of fl.mding spent to install
the measure. The only exception are measures that address health and safety issues within a
weatherized home. This cost-effectiveness measure has, until fairly recently, has been accepted,
without objection, by the Commission Staff, the utilities involved, the Commission, and every
other entity that the CAPs answer to in terms of the LIWA measures they install using utility
funds.
Thus, although they have come under unpredicted and somewhat unwarranted criticism
since early 2011, the CAPs and CAPAI have always operated and evaluated the LIWA programs
in a good faith manner and under the belief that the measures installed by them were cost-
effective and that they had fulfilled all obligations they had and met expectations of them by any
entity with such authority. As Staff itself phrased it in its Report: "[t]he last year was
challenging for Idaho's low income weatherization programs." Report atp. 1.
A. Case No. PAC-E-11-13
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
On April 29, 2011, Rocky Mountain filed an application seeking authority to suspend
future cost-effectiveness evaluations for its LIWA program based on the asserted claim that the
program was not cost-effective and the added cost of evaluations only exacerbated the problem.
Rocky Mountain supported its application with what has come to be known as the "CADMUS
study." Two months later, on June 30, 2011, the Commission issued Order No. 32284, a Notice
establishing an intervention deadline and a Notice of Modified Procedure seeking comments in
response to Rocky Mountain's application no later than September 28, 2011. On September 27,
2011, the Commission issued Order No. 32623 and a Notice extending the comment deadline to
October 28, 2011. The Notice did not provide the opportunity for Staff and CAPAI to respond to
each other's comments, or even for Rocky Mountain to reply to any comments filed. CAPAI
timely intervened.
As CAPAI analyzed the CADMUS study, it became increasingly apparent that the study
was fatally flawed and led to conclusions and inferences not legally or factually justifiable.
Nonetheless, CAPAI believed that, based on legal and factual reasons, the Rocky Mountain
filing had thrown a long-lived conservation program with a history of providing value to all
ratepayers into doubt creating the very real possibility that such programs would be terminated.'
Because more than a decade of hard work and investment of resources by CAPAI and, more
importantly, the continued existence of Idaho's three LIWA programs now seemed to hang in the
balance, CAPAI retained the services of an esteemed expert in the field of LIWA cost-
effectiveness evaluations, Mr. Roger Colton.
1 CAPAI's concerns were not unfounded as evidenced by Staffs reaction to the 11-13 filing, which included the
objection by Staff to any funding increases for all three LIWA programs' pending the completion of a "workshop"
process at some point in the future, as well as the Commission's rulings adopting Staffs position in last year's three
pending general rate cases.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
Following extensive discovery between the parties, as well as a webinar involving
CADMUS, Rocky Mountain, Staff, CAPAI, and others, Mr. Colton prepared a very detailed
study of his own showing that the CADMUS study had serious flaws and produced significantly
inaccurate results and conclusions. Mr. Colton provided a thorough explanation of how the
unique benefits of Rocky Mountain's LIWA program should be valued in order to fairly and
properly calculate its overall cost-effectiveness. By its nature, Mr. Colton's study was applicable
to all three of Idaho's LIWA programs. That study, consisting of 28 pages, was filed as an
exhibit to CAPAI's 18 pages of comments addressing the legal and practical implications of
Rocky Mountain's application.
Although Rocky Mountain's application also proposed that its LIWA program simply be
accepted as part of its overall DSM portfolio, CAPAI strenuously opposed the application. The
reasons are simple. First, if the Commission approved Rocky Mountain's assertions that LIWA
was not cost-effective yet granted Rocky Mountain's proposal to include LIWA into its overall
DSM portfolio, this placed the Commission in the legally indefensible position of approving a
DSM program aimed at a select group of customers that was not cost-effective. This, arguably,
would result in imposing costs onto other ratepayers that were not fair, just and reasonable and,
therefore, in violation of Idaho law.
Second, CAPAI objected to the whole premise for Rocky Mountain's filing (i.e., that its
LIWA program was not cost-effective). CAPAI was understandably concerned that the
Commission might react to the application by not only terminating Rocky Mountain's LIWA
program, but those of Idaho Power and AVISTA. The Commission had just approved a larger
LIWA funding increase for Rocky Mountain than even CAPAI proposed just a month or two
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 4
prior to the filing of the 11-13 case. Thus, from CAPAI's perspective, Rocky Mountain's filing
had quite suddenly and unexpectedly put everything in serious peril as of April 29, 2011.
As the case schedule was being discussed by the parties in the late summer/early fall of
2011, CAPAI obviously had no idea how or when the Commission might ultimately rule on
Rocky Mountain's 11-13 application. Further, because Staff and CAPAI had not yet been
granted an opportunity to respond to each other's comments, and because Rocky Mountain's
Reply Comments were, technically, filed without any permission set forth in the Commission's
Orders, Notices or Procedural Rules, it was not clear to CAPAI whether there existed any
particular deadline for intervenor finding and whether that deadline might be extended by virtue
of additional filings as proposed by CAPAI. CAPAI communicated with Staff informally
requesting that the Commission be queried regarding its preference as to possible scheduling
changes, but no definitive response was provided.
In addition to the foregoing, CAPAI proposed in its comments that the schedule in the
11-13 case be modified. Specifically, in Section V of it comments from pages 14-16, CAPAI
discussed how the unique and complex nature of the case warranted an extension of the
scheduling as set forth in the Commission's Notice of Modified Procedure and Orders Nos.
32284 and 32363.
When it became apparent to CAPAI that no guidance regarding the Commission's
intentions would be forthcoming, CAPM filed its application for intervenor finding in the 11-13
case on December 14, 2011, more than a month prior to the Commission's final Order No. 32440
on January 18, 2012. CAPAI makes this point to emphasize that while it, of course, accepts the
Commission's finding that its petition for intervenor funding was untimely, CAPAI did not
willfully or negligently ignore any specific deadline of which it was unequivocally aware.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 5
On January 18, 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 32440 deferring any final
decision regarding Rocky Mountain's application, declined to increase LIWA funding for Rocky
Mountain and Idaho Power as being proposed by CAPAL in those utilities' general rate cases, and
ordered public workshops to examine the issues thoroughly analyzed and addressed by CAPAI
in its comments. See, Order 32440 at p. 9.
Regarding CAPAI's application for intervenor funding, the Commission ruled that it "was
not timely." Id. at p. 10. The Commission ruled, however, that CAPAI would have the
opportunity to seek recovery of its 11-13 expenses in the future. Noting the interplay between
numerous proceedings and the fact that the 11-13 case was effectively a "precursor" to the
workshop case, the Commission explained its decision as follows:
"The Commission notes that it will entertain a timely petition for
intervenor funding filed by CAPAI following the conclusion of the
public workshops ordered in this case. Because the Commission views
this case as a precursor to the generic investigation and public workshops
ordered in this case, PAC-E-1 1-13, and the Company's last general rate
case, PAC-E- 11-12, CAPAI may submit a request that includes any fees
and/or costs incurred by the organization associated with this case."
Id.
Though it was not specifically stated, CAPAI assumed that it would be given the
opportunity to file an application for intervenor funding in the new workshop case once it was
initiated.
Though severely limited in resources, CAPAI moved forward and fully and meaningfully
participated in the workshop proceeding initiated by the Commission as discussed below.
B. Case No. GNR-E-12-01
This proceeding was initiated on February 15, 2012 with the issuance of a Notice of
Public Workshops. The Notice identified a substantial list of issues, without limitation, that the
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 6
parties were expected to address. The Notice did not include any discussion of intervention and
no deadline for intervention was ever established by the Commission in this case. Thus, there
are technically no "intervenors" and, arguably, no "parties" to the workshop case but, rather, a
number of "participants," and those who filed comments with the Commission. Workshops were
conducted over two days in March, 2012 and were well-attended, including by CAPAI who
participated fully in the workshops and engaged in considerable discussion and interaction with
Staff and other participants outside the scope and both prior and subsequent to the workshops.
The participants agreed to a scheduling outline which started with the dissemination by
Staff, following the workshops, of an informal "draft" report. The other participants were given
the opportunity to file responsive, informal comments to Staffs report. Because there were no
formal parties to the case and, therefore, no List of Parties typically as issued by the Commission
in more formal proceedings, those responsive comments to the draft report were, apparently, not
circulated to other participants but only received and reviewed by Staff.
On October 23, 2012, Staff filed its final Report. On November 2, 2012, the Commission
issued a Notice of Modified Procedure and Order No. 32673 establishing deadlines for formal,
responsive comments by all interested persons and a deadline of December 7, 2012 for Reply
Comments by Staff. Formal comments in response to Staffs Report were filed by CAPAI, Idaho
Power, Rocky Mountain, AVISTA, Idaho Conservation League, and Snake River Alliance.
Finally, the Commission's associated Order No. 32673 established a deadline of December 21,
2012 for the filing of applications for intervenor funding stating that: "Intervenor funding
requests, if any, must be filed within fourteen (14) days after the reply deadline." [Staffs reply to
comments in response to Report; i.e., December 21, 2012]. Order No. 32673 at p.4.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 7
Central to the workshop were the comments filed by CAPAI in the 11-13 case, the study
prepared by Mr. Cotton, and the issues raised therein. As the Commission predicted, the 11-13
case certainly proved a "precursor" and virtually all of the effort expended and, therefore, costs
and fees incurred, by CAPAI in that case were relevant to and formed much of the basis of the
workshop case. A good example is the issue of precisely how, and when, to property value
"non-energy benefits," and which non-energy benefits to include in a LIWA cost-effectiveness
evaluation, which were an integral part of Mr. Colton's study and CAPAI's position in both the
11-13 case and the workshop proceeding.
Other participants to the workshop case took positions on this and other issues raised by
CAPAI. Certainly, there was considerable value brought to the case by Staff and all participants
as well. As Staff phrased it in its Reply Comments: "[although differences remain on some
issues, many long-standing questions have been answered and resolved." Reply atp. 2. CAPAI
does not wish to veil the fact that there remains significant disagreement between Staff and the
participants regarding issues of considerable importance, but does note that concessions seem to
have been made on all sides.
III. THRESHOLD ISSUES
Rule 161 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.161 provides that
"intervenors" may apply for funding in "any case" involving utilities with gross Idaho revenues
exceeding $3,500.000. Although Commission Order No. 32673 sets a deadline for intervenor
funding, there are no intervenors in the workshop case. Therefore, it is unclear to CAPAI if
intervnor funding is even obtainable for expenses incurred in this proceeding and, if so, from
which utility and in what percentage. CAPAT is hesitant to presume that the intervenor funding
language contained in Order No. 32673 in the workshop case was put there solely for CAPAI's
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 8
benefit (related to the 11-13 case), or was put there for all workshop participants, whether they
commented or not, for costs incurred in this proceeding.
Second, although the Commission specifically provided CAPAI with the opportunity to
seek recovery of its expenses incurred in the 11-13 case following the conclusion of the
workshops, that case is closed. CAPAI simply notes the uncertainty it has regarding how to
structure this application or whether it has even chosen the appropriate docket in which to file
this application. CAPAI stands ready to amend or supplement its filing should the Commission
desire.
Finally, though CAPAI has incurred considerable expenses in the workshop proceeding,
the CADMUS study has been largely discredited as CAPAI argued in the 11-13 case it should
be, Staff still seeks literally additional years of time to continue studying the underlying issues
before altering LIWA funding, though CAPAI has been carrying related expenses for the better
part of two years, and though CAPAI feels that the costs incurred in this proceeding were
unnecessarily duplicative, CAPAI continues to take what it believes a very conservative
approach to funding requests and only seeks those expenses incurred and identified in the 11-13
case and Exhibit A hereto. CAPAI has tracked its expenses in this workshop proceeding should
the Commission, for some reason, desire that information.
W. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Rule 161 Requirements:
There are three electric utilities who participated in this proceeding including Rocky
Mountain Power Company ("RMP" or "Rocky Mountain"), Idaho Power Company and Avista
Corporation, all of which are regulated public utilities with gross Idaho intrastate annual
revenues exceeding three million, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00). As discussed
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 9
herein, CAPAI is uncertain how any intervenor funding award potentially issued by the
Commission as a result of this application would be paid, by whom, and in what relative
proportion.
Rule 162 Requirements:
The information required by Procedural Rule 162 for the 11-13 case is already contained
in the attached Exhibit A and will not be repeated. The following information applies solely to
the workshop case.
(1)Itemized list of Expenses
As set forth above, CAPAI seeks only those expenses incurred in the 11-13 case and
those expenses, as stated in the attached Exhibit A, total $16,845.00.
(2)Statement of Proposed Findings
The workshop proceeding naturally involved give and take and to the extent that there
exist any substantive differences in CAPAI's proposed findings and recommendations between
the two cases, those put forth in CAPAI's the workshop case comments supersede.
CAPAI submitted extensive comments in response to Staffs report in this case and its
proposed findings and recommendations are stated therein. CAPAI attempted to structure its
workshop Comments in such as way as to reveal where it differed from the position taken by
Staff in its Report, and to show where it agreed.
In summary, CAPAI proposes that the Commission reject Staffs proposal to essentially
freeze any and all LIWA funding increases for a period which, depending on the utility is in
question, ranges from at least a year to several years. CAPAI submits that there is no legitimate
reason that the agreed upon revisions needed to the CADMUS study, including the valuation of
non-energy benefits, and the data needed to evaluate each utility's LIWA programs, should take
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 10
so long. CAPAI urges the Commission to not continue pushing the resolution of issues debated
over nearly two years now for even more years into the future before even allowing intervenor
funding changes to be proposed by the parties.
The issues addressed in this case have now been exhaustively addressed by CAPAI twice.
Staffs Report seems to propose that one or more additional proceedings to revisit these issues be
conducted at some unspecified point, years into the future. As noted in this application, CAPAI
simply cannot afford to continue litigating the issues addressed in the 11-13 and this workshop
case any longer. CAPAI's financial resources for addressing the specifics in the workshop issues
have long been exhausted. Though Rocky Mountain's 11-13 application and Staffs response
thereto have raised complex issues, the low-income ratepayers, and the general body of
ratepayers, should not suffer through a failure to make difficult decisions. At no point in time
will there ever exist a perfect body of information to resolve the issues presented by this
proceeding.
In summary, CAPAI seeks a ruling from the Commission that the combination of the
numerous filings in this case, including the Staff Report, responsive participant Comments, and
Staffs reply comments, constitute sufficient information for the Commission to identify a clear
and consistent standard or metric for establishing LIWA funding levels and specific guidance
regarding how to calculate the cost-effectiveness of those programs. Resolving the existing
ambiguity will reduce the inherent contentious nature of these proceedings and require less
intervention and associated expenses by all involved participants.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAPAI submits that its requested costs are more than reasonable in amount. CAPAI has
thoroughly articulated its position regarding the reasonableness of its requested expenses above.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 11
Specifically, CAPAJ is proposing that it simply be granted only a portion of total expenses
incurred since it began addressing relevant issues in late spring, 2011. Were CAPAI to include
expenses incurred in the workshop proceeding, the total funding request would be unprecedented
in size, for CAPAI. CAPAI respectfully submits that there can be no question as to the value it
has brought to the issues addressed in this proceeding.
(04) Explanation of Cost Statement
CAPAI has already addressed the requirements of this rule subpart earlier in this
application. The fact that CAPAI has incurred duplicative expenses over nearly two years
exceeding its budgetary constraints demonstrates that the costs incurred constitute a "significant
financial hardship" for CAPAI.
CAPAI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho. CAPAI's funding for any given effort might come
from a different variety of sources, including governmental. CAPAI does not have
"memberships" and, therefore, does not receive member contributions of any kind. Many of
CAPAI's funding sources are unpredictable and impose conditions or limitations on the scope
and nature of work eligible for funding. CAPAI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionary"
funds available for all projects. Some matters before this Commission, furthermore, do not
qualify for intervenor funding by virtue of their nature.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funds and past awards by this
Commission, CAPAI would not be able to participate in cases before this Commission
representing an important and otherwise unrepresented segment of regulated public utility
customers. Even with intervenor funding, participation in Commission cases constitutes a
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 12
significant financial hardship because CAPAI must pay its expenses as they are incurred, not if
and when intervenor funding becomes available.
(5)Statement of Difference
As with the 11-13 case, there continue to be areas of both agreement and disagreement
with Staff regarding the cost-effectiveness of LI WA programs and the appropriate method of
evaluating said programs. Those areas of disagreement or "difference" have already been
outlined above. Several of the more significant areas of disagreement include: CAPAI believes
that sufficient data has been collected over the course of more than a year and a half enabling the
Commission to resolve LIWA funding and cost-effectiveness issues without deferring the matter
for several more years, as proposed by Staff; sufficient data and proposals by the parties exist to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LIWA such that an indefinite freeze on future LIWA funding
increases is unnecessary and unwarranted, especially during times of nearly annual general rate
increases for electric public utilities; and CAPAI and other participants assert that Staffs
proposed list of non-energy benefits is far too restrictive and that Staffs valuation of those
benefits too low.
To this extent, there are material differences between CAPAI and Staff.
(6)Statement of Recommendation
CAPAI submits that even accepting many of the criticisms asserted by some during this
proceeding, that there seems universal agreement that properly run and properly evaluated LIWA
programs are cost-effective conservation programs are in the best interests of the general body of
any regulated public utility. Staff itself recognizes the system-wide, or "non-energy," benefits of
LIWA programs which inure to the general body of ratepayers.
(7)Statement Showing Class of Customer
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 13
To the extent that CAPAI represents a specific customer class of Idaho Power, Rocky
Mountain and AVISTA, it is the residential class.
CAPM APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 14
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this J 'day of December, 2012.
Brad M. Purdy
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the X4 _r day of December, 2012, served a copy
of the foregoing document on the following by email and U.S. mail, first class postage.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
[e-mail]
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
[e-mail]
David J. Meyer
AVISTA Corporation
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220-3727
david.meyeravistacorp.com
Kelly Norwood
AVISTA Corporation
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220-3727
kel1y.norwoodavistacorp.com
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Donovan E. Walker
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Gregory W. Said
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83702
gsaididahopower.com
Karl Klein
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Deputy Attorney General
CAPAT APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 16
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
karl.kleinpuc.idaho.gov
Neil Price
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Deputy Attorney General
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
DATED, this QL day of December, 2012
ME r~1414/wjppl- 111
Fr~acllM. Purdy
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 17
EXHIBIT "A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Case No. PAC-E-11-13:2
Costs:
Photocopies/postage $175.00
Total Costs $175.00
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy —63.00 hours @ $130.00/hr.) $8,190.00
Expert Witness (Teri Ottens —20.0 hours @ $50.00/hr.) $1,000.00
Roger Colton (44.0 hrs @ $170/hr.) $7,480.00
Total Fees $16,670.00
Total Expenses $16,845.00
Case No. GNR-E-12-01:
2 The Itemized Expenses for Case No. PAC-E-1 1-13 are simply a replication of the fees and costs requested by
CAPAI in that case on December 14, 2011.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 18
-
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17''St.
Boise, ID. 83702
(208) 3.84-1299 (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
RECEIVED
2011 DEC It PM 14:21
IDAHO UB; UTILITIES CoMM!Ss::I
BEFORE nw IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER SEEKING )
AUTHORIZATION TO SUSPEND FUTURE )
PROGRAM EVALUATIONS OF SCHEDULE 21, )
LOW INCOME WEATEIERIZATION SERVICES )
FOR INCOME QUALIFYING CUSTOMERS )
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-1 1-13
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
TION OF IDAHO'S
J11
COMES NOW, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 3 1.01.01, petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the above-
captioned proceeding.
Rule 161 Requirements:
Rocky Mountain Power Company (RMP or Company) is a regulated electric public
utility with gross Idaho intrastate annual revenues exceeding three million, five hundred
thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirements:
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR 1N1ERVENOR FUNDING
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, an itemized list of
all expenses incurred by CAPAI in this proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." CAPAI
seeks total funding of $16,845.00.
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed findings and recommendations of CAPAI are set forth in CAPAFs detailed
comments, including a lengthy legal analysis, supported by the exhaustive 28 page analysis
performed by CAPArs expert retained for this case, Mr. Roger Colton.
CAPAI recommends that the Commission accept the Company's application that its low-
income weatherization program continue to be included in its overall DSM portfolio, but
recommends that the Commission reject the application's request that the Company be relieved
from further cost-effectiveness evaluations. Most of all, CAPAI recommends that the
Commission reject RMP's contention that its LIWA program is not cost-effective and that the
Commission provide guidance to the parties in term of how to properly evaluate LIWA in the
future, including how to value the social benefits derived from the program as well as the "non-
energy" benefits of LIWA such as reduced arrearages, reduced debt collection costs, improved
cash flow, etc.
Finally, CAPAI recommends that if the Commission believes that the information already
Provided by the parties does not fully provide the Commission with sufficient ability to provide a
definitive cost-effectiveness evaluation technique, that LIWA continue to be considered cost-
effective and that no "hold" be placed on future funding increases until this issue is fully
resolved.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAPAI submits that its requested costs are reasonable in amount CAPAI intervened in
this proceeding shortly after it was filed and prior to a Notice of Application being issued.
Because of the landmark nature of this case, the legal and pragmatic predicament is created, the
consequences it threatened to have on all LIWA programs in Idaho, and CAPAI's wish to satisfy
Staffs desire for guidance from the Commission in evaluating LIWA programs, CAPAI
participated in this case on a level equal to or greater than a general rate case. Because RMP
application was facially supported by a type of analysis that CAPAPs staff and representatives
were not capable of responding to in full, and because of the potential for this case to undermine
nearly a decade of a substantial investment of time and money by CAPAI in advocating for low-
income interests and, finally, the because of the uncertainty whether this proceeding might
ultimately be converted into a formal case or result in a generic proceeding requiring an expert
witness in the field, CAPAI believed it essential to retain the services of an expert, Mr. Roger
Colton, who is a nationally renowned expert in the field of evaluating low-income programs.
The effort put into this case by CAPAI and its representatives is substantial and included
the normal time and effort expended to become aformal party to this case as well as engaging in
substantial discovery, participating in a webinar with RMP, Staff, and CADMITS, extensive
analysis of data and the compilation of comments and Mr. Colton's analysis.
Several primary points were raised and addressed by CAPAI in the combined 45 pages of
comments/analysis it filed in this case. The application effectively seeks a ruling from the
Commission that L1WA is not cost-effective, but that it should, nonetheless, be included as part
of the Company's overall DSM portfolio and that RMP be relieved of any future obligation to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LIWA.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
To the extent not obvious, the manner in which RMP framed and phrased its application,
if accepted as proposed, could well result in a Commission Order that would likely be unlawful
and not withstand potential legal challenge; i.e., the Commission would find a DSM program to
not be cost-effective and, therefore, not prudent, but allow indefinite continuation of that
program by simply including it in RIsIP's overall DSM portfolio requiring ratepayers to pay for
it. In calling into question the wisdom of RMFs application, CAPAI was clearly not merely
serving its own interests, but seeking to avoid a situation that would place the Commission and
its Staff in an awkward position.
Thus, although CAPAJ firmly believes that LIWA is a cost-effective program when
properly evaluated, it avoided the arguable convenience of allowing RMP to seek a formal ruling
that would effectively immunize LIWA from attack. This might have been the expedient thing
for CAPAI to do, but not a fair-minded position to take. CAPAI was well aware of Staffs
concerns about this, was deeply concerned over the legality of the application as just discussed,
and legitimately believes that LIWA should be subject to some manner of evaluation, so long as
it is reasonable and takes into account the unique characteristics and benefits of LIWA to not just
low-income, but all RMP customers.
Though it is unfortunate that CAPAI was effectively obligated to incur costs that pushed
it so far financially, CAPAI is confident that the efforts made by its representatives, including
Mr. Colton, will ultimately aid Staff and the Commission considerably in determining how to
evaluate a uniquely desirable program such as LIWA. The analysis, offered by Mr. Colton is
such that so long as RMP does a proper job of collecting the needed information in type and
magnitude, it should not be difficult to more accurately assess LIWA from a cost-effectiveness
standpoint using and valuing both non-energy and societal benefits
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 4
In addition to the foregoing, CAPAI had even greater involvement in this case because of
the ripple effect it has had on other pending cases, including the RMP, Idaho Power and
AVISTA general rate cases either recently completed or still pending. Because RMP's
application in this case was filed first, CAPAI correctly predicted that RMPs filing, flawed as it
is, would result in a hesitation on the part of Staff and perhaps other parties to not object to an
increase in L1WA funding for the three utilities. CAPAI was most concerned about Idaho Power
and the fact that, as CAPAI determines it, that utility is funding its WAQC program at a fraction
of the other two companies. CAPAFs predictions have proven accurate and the Commission is
now being presented with widely disparate points of view on LIWA finding, all as a direct result
of this case.
It is unfortunate enough that a single filing by one utility (who was obligated to file this
case roughly a year ago) can cause such widespread disruption for the only low-income advocate
that regularly appears before this Commission and, more importantly, for the segment of
customers it represents, but the half-hearted nature in which RMP went about providing its
contractor CADMIJS with what Staff considers insufficient detailed data, makes it worse. As
noted by both CAPAFs expert Roger Colton and Staff expert Stacey Donohue, the techniques
employed by CADMUS were not necessarily inappropriate, as far as they went. The problem
lies in what clearly was a minimalist effort by the Company to provide CADMLJS with sufficient
information to legitimately render a meaningful conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of
LIWA. The financial and practical consequences to CAPAI, Staff and the Commission of this
are considerable. Because of the ripple effect caused by RMP's filing and supporting report,
CAPMs required efforts in the pending three electric rate cases was also increased, causing a
commensurate increase to costs in those cases as well.
V
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INThRVENOR FUNDING 5
In its comments, CAPAI notes that this case is unique not only in substance, but
procedure as well. CAPAI assumed that Staff and RMP would desire time to review Mr.
Colton's analysis, considering that both Staff and CAPAI filed their comments by the same
deadline. CAPAI is uncertain whether any fiuther procedural steps might be deemed necessary
by the Commission. When CAPAI filed its comments, it recommended that additional time be
provided for the other parties to respond to CAPAI's comments and Mr. Colton's analysis and
that a deadline be set for that response. CAPAJ recommended that the Commission then base its
final determination on that record. CAPAI prepared this petition as soon as possible after
learning that some manner of ruling might be imminent CAPAI does not know if that
determination will order additional action taken by the parties, possibly defer ruling pending
additional action or make this a generic proceeding,or completely and finally resolve all of the
issues raised during this case in the near future.
Regarding the costs set forth in Exhibit A, CAPAI notes that it normally relies upon the
expertise of Ms. Ted Ottens who typically testifies on behalf ofCAPAl. Ms. Ottens's expertise
in low-income issues was relied upon to a lesser degree in this case, but still necessary to a
certain extent Mr. Colton's fees are relatively modest given his vast knowledge, experience and
expertise in the precise field of evaluating the costs and benefits of low-income programs as
evidenced by his resume filed with CAPAPs comments. CAPAPs legal representative charges a
reduced fee in light of CAMPs limited budget That fee has increased only modestly since
2003.
CAPAI respectfully submits, therefore, that the costs and fees incurred in this case, and
set forth in Exhibit "A," are reasonable in amount.
(04) Explanafion of Cost Statement
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 6
CAM! is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho. CAPAI's funding for any given effort might come
from a different variety of sources, including governmental. CAPAI does not have
"memberships" and, therefore, does not receive member contributions of any kind. Many of
CAPAI's funding sources are unpredictable and impose conditions or limitations on the scope.
and nature of work eligible for funding. CAPAI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionary"
funds available for all projects. Some matters before this Commission, furthermore, do not
qualify for intervenor funding by virtue of their nature.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funds and past awards by this
Commission, CAPAI would not be able to participate in cases before this Commission
representing an important and otherwise unrepresented segment of regulated public utility
customers. Even with intervenor funding, participation in Commission cases constitutes a
significant financial hardship because CAPAI must pay its expenses as they are incurred, not if
and when intervenor funding becomes available.
(05) Statement of Difference
There appears to be some degree of agreement between CAPAI and the Commission
Staff in this case, but there are also material differences. Staff recommends that workshops be
conducted at some future date in order to fill in the holes in RMP's evaluation in this case.
CAPAI recommends that LIWA not be affected by what CAM! perceives as a flawed
evaluation and though CAPAI will willingly participate in any workshops conducted that involve
low-income programs, it does not agree that this proceeding should cast into doubt the efficacy
and cost-effectiveness of RMP's LIWA or other low-income weatherization programs and should
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING . 7
not be relied upon as a basis to not increase funding for those programs where otherwise
justified. To this extent, there are material differences between CAPAI and Staff
(6)Statement of Recommendation
CAPAJ asserts that all cost-effective DSM programs are in the best interests of the
general body of any regulated public utility. RMP's LIWA program is no diflèrent in that
respect. While RMFs filing might have temporarily cast doubt, in the minds of some, as to
LIWA's cost-effectiveness, the Commission doubled funding to LIWA this very year CAPAI is
confident that LIWA is and will continue to prove to be a cost-effective DSM program
benefitting all RMP ratepayers. Low -income DSM provides an additional benefit to all
customers because of the many non-energy benefits thoroughly analyzed in Mr. Colton's
analysis.
(7)Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAPAI represents a specific RMP Power customer class, it is the
residential class.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMn lED, this 14th day of December, 2011.
- ff~=W=Nmwsa
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 14th day of December, 2011, served a copy
of the foregoing document on the following by email and U.S. mail, first class postage.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
ted.westonãpacificorp.com
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
dathe1.solander(äpacificorp.com
Neil Price
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Deputy Attorney General
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
neil.vriceuc.idaho.gov
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St
Boise, II) 83702
.jean.jewelknuc.idaho.gov
DATED, this 14th day of December, 2011
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 9
EXHIBIT "A"
iTEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postage $175.00
Total Costs $175.00
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy -63.00 hours @ $130.00/hr.) $8,190.00
Expert Witness (Teri Ottens —20.0 hours @ $50.00/hr.) $1,000.00
Roger Colton (44.0 brs @ $170/hr.) $7,480.00
Total Fees $16,670.00
Total Expenses $16,845.00
CAPA! APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 10