28717.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE A PILOT PROGRAM TO ALLOW IRRIGATION CUSTOMERS TO TAKE ELECTRIC SERVICE AT TIME-OF-USE ENERGY RATES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-01-6

ORDER NO. 28717

On April 11, 2001, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. (“IIPA”) filed an Application for Intervenor Funding in this case pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rule 162 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.162
In its Petition, IIPA claimed the following fees and costs:
Legal Fees (Randall C. Budge---21.6 hours @ $150/hr.) $3,240.00
Costs $ 292.54
Consulting Fees (Tony Yankel---27 hours @ $100/hr.) $2,700.00

Total Request $6,232.54

IIPA states that its involvement in the Time-of-Use Program began long before Idaho Power filed this case. IIPA contends that in the early fall of 2000, its counsel, consultant and Executive Director began meeting with Idaho Power officials to encourage and participate in the development and implementation of conservation programs affecting irrigation customers. Accordingly, IIPA asserts that the expenses and costs incurred are reasonable in amount and were necessarily incurred in the development and implementation of this Program.
The IIPA next alleges that the expenses and costs from participating in this case constitute a significant financial hardship for it. IIPA contends that it currently has less than $20,000 in the bank and substantial accounts payable as a result of participation in several cases filed recently by Idaho Power and PacifiCorp. IIPA also asserts that because it is a non-profit corporation that represents farm interests in electric utility rate matters affecting farmers in southern and central Idaho, it must rely solely upon dues and contributions voluntarily paid by members, together with intervenor funding to fund activities and participate in cases before the Commission. However, IIPA maintains that member contributions have fallen because of the extremely depressed agricultural economy. Accordingly, IIPA states that it continues to be a financial hardship for it to fully participate in all rate matters affecting its members. As a result of financial constraints, IIPA alleges that its participation in past cases has been selective and on a limited basis.
IIPA also contends that the positions set forth by it in these proceedings were consistent with the positions taken by Idaho Power because they jointly participated in the development of this Program.
Finally, IIPA maintains that the positions taken by it in this case address issues that concern the general body of users or consumers.
On April 12, 2001, Idaho Power filed a Response to IIPA’s Application that states it has no objection to the Commission granting intervenor funding to this organization in this case. Idaho Power requests that the Commission allow it to include the costs of any award of intervenor funding to IIPA in this case as an expense to be recovered in the Company’s Power Cost Adjustment proceeding.
STANDARDS FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Idaho Code § 61617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide the framework for awards of intervenor funding. Section 61617A(1) declares that it is “policy of this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the commission so that all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings.” Accordingly, the Commission may order any regulated utility with intrastate annual revenues exceeding $1,500,000 to pay all or a portion of one or more parties legal fees, witness fees, and reproduction costs not to exceed a combined amount of $25,000. Idaho Code § 61-617A(2). The Commission’s determination of whether to award intervenor fees and costs in a particular proceeding shall be based on the following considerations: (1) whether the intervenor materially contributed to the decision rendered by the Commission; (2) whether the alleged costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and would be a significant financial hardship for the intervenor to incur; (3) whether the recommendation made by the intervenor differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and (4) whether the testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of concern to the general body of users or consumers.
Subsection 5 of this statute provides that intervenors who are in direct competition with the public utility involved in proceedings before the Commission shall not be granted funding.
Rule 162 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides the procedural requirements with which an application for intervenor funding must comply. The application must contain: (1) an itemized list of expenses broken down into categories; (2) a statement of the intervenor’s proposed finding or recommendation; (3) a statement showing that the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are reasonable; (4) a statement explaining why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; (5) a statement showing how the intervenor’s proposed finding or recommendation differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; (6) a statement showing how the intervenor’s recommendation or position addressed issues of concern to the general body of utility users or customers; and (7) a statement showing the class of customer on whose behalf the intervenor appeared.
Finally, Rule 165 provides that the Commission must find that the intervenor’s presentation materially contributed to the Commission’s decision.
There were no motions filed in opposition to IIPA’s Application for intervenor funding within the 14day time period provided for in Rule 164.
FINDINGS
We find that IIPA’s Application in this case was timely filed and satisfies all of the other “procedural” requirements set forth in Rules 161-165 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
Rule 165 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure contains the following “substantive” requirements: (a) IIPA’s involvement in this case must have materially contributed to the Commission’s final decision, (b) the costs of intervention awarded are reasonable in amount, (c) the costs of intervention are a significant hardship for IIPA, (d) the recommendations of the IIPA differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of Commission Staff, and; (e) the IIPA addressed issues of concern to the general body of ratepayers.
Until IIPA filed its itemized fee affidavits after final Order No. 28702 was issued in this case, the Commission was unaware of the depth of IIPA’s involvement in the development of this Program prior to Idaho Power filing the Application. Once Idaho Power filed its Application, IIPA filed a two-page written comment that simply voiced its support for approval of this Program. Other than these comments, evidence of IIPA’s participation in this case is extremely limited. Furthermore, the brief comments filed by IIPA as part of the official record were insufficient to offer the Commission any understanding of the intervenor's involvement in this case. Accordingly, the Commission cannot find that IIPA’s actions materially contributed to our final decision. IIPA’s positions in this case also did not differ materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff. Finally, the Commission also does not find the amount of intervenor funding requested to be reasonable in amount because of its findings above. Accordingly, we find that the Application for Intervenor Funding of IIPA fails to meet the requirements of Idaho Code § 61-617A and Commission Rule 165. Therefore, IIPA’s request for intervenor funding in this case is denied.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association’s Application for Intervenor Funding is denied in its entirety.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested solely in this Order in this Case No. IPC-E-01-6 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order in this Case No. IPC-E-01-6. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61626.

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of May 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:ipce016_jh3

Through its attorney, Randy Budge, IIPA sent a letter to the Commission stating in almost identical language to that of its filed written comments that it supported this Program. See March 1, 2001 Letter from Randy Budge to the Commissioners.

ORDER NO. 28717 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 24, 2001