2001516_jh.doc

MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN

FROM: JOHN R. HAMMOND

DATE: May 16, 2001

RE: APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. IN CASE NO. IPC-E-01-6, IDAHO POWER’S TIME OF USE PROGRAM.

CASE NO. IPC-E-01-6
I don’t want to beat a dead horse but while researching intervenor funding issues I came across a past Commission Order that is on point regarding the award of intervenor funding for work which was performed prior to an Application being filed. See, In the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval of a Commercial Lighting Energy Efficiency Program, Order No. 24941 (June 1993). Specifically, the Commission awarded an intervenor fees and costs associated with work directly related to a utilities application that was performed prior to its being filed with the Commission. See, Order No. 24491 at 6-7.As you may remember a large portion of the fees and costs that the Irrigation Pumpers Association is seeking recovery of were incurred prior to the Application being filed.
As a quick reminder on April 11, 2001, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. 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 $6,232.54
Itemized fee affidavits for Randy Budge and Tony Yankel are attached.
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 the irrigation class. 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.
IIPA alleges that the expenses and costs incurred by it participating in this case constitute a significant financial hardship for it.
IIPA 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 contends that the position taken by it in this case addresses 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.
CONCLUSION
I believe that Randy Budge at least has an argument based on Order No. 24491 that the Commission can award IIPA intervenor funding for fees and costs incurred by IIPA prior to the Company’s filing. a I don’t know if this will alter your decision about intervenor funding in this case so please advise what course to take.

John Hammond

MEMORANDUM 1