HomeMy WebLinkAbout28770.docBEFORE 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
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF ITS PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULE NO. 72, “IRRIGATION CURTAILMENT PROGRAM RIDER.”
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-01-4
ORDER NO. 28770
On June 11, 2001, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association (“IIPA”) filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification (“Petition”) of the Commission’s Orders denying intervenor funding in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-6 and PAC-E-01-4. See Order Nos. 28717 & 28718. After reviewing the record in these cases, the Commission will grant IIPA’s Petition for Reconsideration in part and deny it in part.
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 2001, IIPA filed its Application for Intervenor Funding in Case No. IPC-E-01-6. In this Application, 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
On March 28, 2001, IIPA filed its Application for Intervenor Funding in Case No. PAC-E-01-4. In its Application, IIPA claimed the following fees and costs:
Legal Fees (Randall C. Budge---10.5 hours @ $150/hr.) $1,575.00
Consulting Fees (Tony Yankel---28 hours @ $100/hr.) $2,800.00
Total Request $4,375.00
On May 24, 2001, the Commission denied these Applications for intervenor funding in their entirety finding that they failed to meet the requirements of Idaho Code § 61-617A and Commission Rule 165. See Order Nos. 28717 & 28718.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION
IIPA states that historically the Commission has liberally construed the criteria governing intervenor funding in favor of rendering awards of fees and costs to intervenors that would be charged back against the customer class receiving the award.
IIPA states that it has benefited by past awards of intervenor funding. The availability of such funding has allowed IIPA to actively participate in cases before the Commission. Thus, IIPA is concerned that in these cases the Commission has too narrowly construed the intervenor funding criteria. IIPA contends that these decisions may deter intervenors from participating in cases before the Commission. Furthermore, IIPA is concerned that the Commission may have denied its Applications, unaware that most of the work that it performed in these cases occurred prior to Idaho Power filing the Program Application. IIPA alleges that neither Idaho Code § 61-617A nor Rule 165 limits awards to expenses incurred after an Application is filed.
In regard to Idaho Power’s Time of Use Energy Program, IIPA contends that the majority of its costs and expenses were incurred while working with the Company to develop this Program prior to its presentation to the Commission. Accordingly, it came to the Commission hand in hand with the Company with this Program. Staff also supported the Program. Without its participation IIPA contends that this Program would not have been developed. Thus, IIPA alleges that it materially contributed to the Commission’s decision to approve this Program. IIPA also argues that its active participation in the development of this Program was materially different than the Commission Staff’s contribution because Staff merely supported the Program without participating in its development.
IIPA states that in the PacifiCorp Irrigation Curtailment case it made similar arguments for an award of intervenor funding. IIPA again urges the Commission to reconsider its decision and asserts that its arguments in its initial Application for intervenor funding in this case justify an award of funding.
Accordingly, IIPA requests that the Commission reconsider its decision in these cases. IIPA states that if the Commission is not willing to reconsider its Orders then it seeks clarification of the denials and an explanation of what will be required in the future in order to secure awards of intervenor funding.
COMMISSION DECISION
A. Standards for Reconsideration/Clarification
Pursuant to Commission Rule 331, a party may seek reconsideration of a Commission Order within twenty-one (21) days after the service date of issuance of any final Order. Furthermore, “[p]etitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Commission Rule 325 also provides that any person may petition to clarify any order of the Commission and a petition for clarification may be combined with a petition for reconsideration. IDAPA 31.01.01.325.
IIPA’s Petition was timely filed and meets the other requirements set out by the Commission’s Rules. Accordingly, the Commission shall resolve on the merits IIPA’s request to reconsider and/or clarify its Orders denying intervenor funding in these cases.
B. Standards for Intervenor Funding
Idaho Code § 61 617A and Rules 161-165 provide the framework for awards of intervenor funding. Section 61 617A(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). Expenses awarded to intervenors are an allowable business expense and are chargeable to the class of customers that are represented by the intervenor. Idaho Code § 61-617A.
The Commission’s determination of whether to award intervenor fees and costs in a particular proceeding shall be based in part 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.
Rule 162 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provides the procedural requirements for filing an application for intervenor funding. 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. IDAPA 31.01.01.162. Finally, Rule 165 provides that the Commission must find that the intervenor’s presentation materially contributed to the Commission’s decision. IDAPA 31.01.01.165. We now turn to the respective cases.
1. Case No. IPC-E-01-6. Initially the Commission denied this Application based upon IIPA’s limited involvement in this matter once it was filed before the Commission. However, after reviewing the record in this case, supplemented by information contained in the Petition for Reconsideration, the Commission finds that its decision must be reconsidered. On reconsideration we recognize IIPA’s efforts in developing this Program with Idaho Power Company prior to the filing of the Application.
Utility filings are often the product of a cooperative effort between the utility and one or more intervenor groups. In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval of a Commercial Lighting Energy Efficiency Program, Case No. IPC-E-93-5, Order No. 24941. The present case is an example of such cooperative efforts. We find that IIPA worked extensively with Idaho Power to develop this Program prior to it being presented to the Commission. Randy Budge’s itemized fee statement demonstrates this involvement as he spent a total of 17 hours, of the 21.60 hours he billed, working on behalf of IIPA to develop this Program with the Company. As a result IIPA and Idaho Power came to the Commission “hand in hand” when the Application was filed eliminating the need to litigate unresolved issues. This enabled the Commission to quickly render an informed decision that approved the operation of this Program. Accordingly, the Commission on reconsideration now finds that IIPA’s efforts were valuable to the development, approval and subsequent implementation of this Program.
The Commission also finds that IIPA’s costs of intervention are reasonable with one exception. Mr. Budge’s fee statement contains an entry for January 18, 2001 that reflects his attendance at a Legislative Committee hearing concerning electric restructuring. We find that Mr. Budge’s attendance at this hearing did not have any direct relevance to this case or to the Commission’s consideration of it. Accordingly, the Commission will deduct two hours from Mr. Budge’s total hours billed for this case. This subtraction, at Mr. Budge’s hourly billing rate amounts to a reduction of $300 in the amount of intervenor funding the Commission will allow to be recovered.
The Commission further finds that the costs of intervention in this case were a significant hardship to IIPA based upon the reasons stated in both its Application for Intervenor Funding and its Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification. The Commission also finds that IIPA’s recommendations differed materially from that of the Commission Staff. In particular, IIPA participated in the development of this Program while the Staff did not. On this basis the Commission finds that this element is satisfied.
Finally, the Commission finds that IIPA addressed issues of concern to the general body of ratepayers. The Time of Use Energy Program should help Idaho Power to reduce its exposure to purchases of high priced power on the wholesale market benefiting ratepayers, irrigators and the Company.
Based on the reasoning above, the Commission finds it appropriate to grant IIPA’s Petition, with the exception noted above, in Case No. IPC-E-01-6. Therefore, the Commission shall award IIPA intervenor funding in the amount of $5,932.54.
2. Case No. PAC-E-01-4. In denying IIPA’s Application for intervenor funding in this case, the Commission found that: IIPA’s participation in this case had very little influence on the Commission’s final decision; that IIPA’s contention that its involvement in this matter preceded the Application being filed by PacifiCorp was not corroborated by the fee statements submitted by Randy C. Budge and Tony Yankel; and that IIPA’s recommendations did not differ materially from that of the Commission Staff. See Order No. 28718.
After reviewing the record in this case, supplemented by the Petition for Reconsideration, the Commission will reconsider its decision to deny intervenor funding in this case in part.
PacifiCorp filed is Application for its Irrigation Curtailment Program Rider on February 23, 2001. Among other things, the Company proposed to pay participating irrigators $.085 per qualifying kWh that they did not consume during the 2001 irrigation season as compared to their historical usage. IIPA, through Mr. Budge’s representation, recommended that the irrigators be paid a higher price by PacifiCorp to forego the consumption of energy. It is now clear that Mr. Budge also mobilized members of IIPA to appear before the Commission and present their opinions regarding PacifiCorp’s Program. Their testimony helped the Commission render a decision in this case. Based on these efforts the Commission finds that in part IIPA materially contributed to its decision to approve this Program.
The Commission also finds that the costs of intervention in this case represent a significant hardship to IIPA based upon the reasons stated in both its Application for Intervenor Funding and its Petition for Reconsideration and/or Clarification. Finally, the Commission finds that IIPA addressed issues of concern to the general body of users or consumers. PacifiCorp’s Program should help to reduce its exposure to purchases of high priced power on the wholesale market, benefiting ratepayers, irrigators and the Company.
The Commission, however, does not find that Mr. Yankel’s efforts on behalf of IIPA contributed value to this case. It is unclear to the Commission what Mr. Yankel’s role was in this matter. Consequently the Commission finds that his services were not necessary nor did they contribute to the recommendations that IIPA made to the Commission. Furthermore, because this case was considered subsequent to Idaho Power’s Irrigation Buy-Back Program, Case No. IPC-E-01-6, it was much easier for Intervenors to evaluate PacifiCorp’s Program and make recommendations. For example, the Commission, without assistance from any party in this case, immediately recognized the deficiencies of PacifiCorp’s Program and ordered the Company to justify its proposal or amend it. Accordingly, we find that IIPA has not demonstrated in its Application or its Petition for Reconsideration that it should be awarded intervenor funding for the services performed by Mr. Yankel in Case No. PAC-E-01-4.
Based on the above reasoning, in regard to Case No. PAC-E-01-4, the Commission will award $1,575.00 in intervenor funding to IIPA for this case.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association’s Petition for Reconsideration is granted in regards to Case No. IPC-E-01-6, Idaho Power’s Time of Use Program. Accordingly, the Commission will award $5,932.54 in intervenor funding to IIPA. Idaho Power shall include the costs of this award of intervenor funding to IIPA as an expense to be recovered in the Company’s next PCA proceeding from the irrigation class.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Irrigation Pumpers Association’s Petition for Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part in Case No. PAC-E-01-4. IIPA is entitled to an award of intervenor funding in the amount of $1,575.00. PacifiCorp shall include the costs of this award of intervenor funding to IIPA as an expense to be recorded in a deferred account to be recovered from the irrigation class at the time of its next rate case or request to recover excess power purchase amounts which have been given deferred accounting treatment.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-6 and PAC-E-01-4 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of July 2001.
PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary
O:ipce016_jh3
Idaho Power did not object to IIPA’s petition and requested 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. See Response filed on April 12, 2001.
IIPA also cites its Application for intervenor funding in this case where it contended amongst other things that the expenses and costs from participating in this case constituted a significant financial hardship for it and that the positions taken by it addressed issues concerning 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.
Mr. Budge is IIPA’s legal counsel.
When combined with Mr. Yankel’s time spent working on this Program for IIPA, forty-three (43) hours of work was performed in furtherance of its development.
Uniformly, these irrigators recommended that the Commission raise the price per kWh that the Company would pay under the Program and eliminate the requirement that irrigators disconnect their pumps.
ORDER NO. 28770 2
Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 5, 2001