28756.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE IDAHO POWER
COMPANY APPLICATION FOR A
REFUNDABLE EMERGENCY ENERGY
CHARGE FOR THE RECOVERY OF
EXTRAORDINARY POWER SUPPLY
EXPENSES.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-01-7

IN THE MATTER OF THE IDAHO POWER
COMPANY APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY
TO IMPLEMENT A POWER COST
ADJUSTMENT (PCA) RATE FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE FROM MAY 1, 2001 THROUGH MAY
15, 2002.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-01-11

INTERVENOR FUNDING

ORDER NO. 28756

INTRODUCTION
On May 17, 2001, the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Mary McGown, Idaho Rivers United, and Idaho Rural Council (“Intervenors”) petitioned the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for intervenor funding pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01, for the amount of $9,661.84. Idaho Power Company’s response, filed on May 24, 2001, did not object to the Intervenors’ Application for intervenor funding. Idaho Power did, however, ask that it be permitted to include the payment of the award as an expense in the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) for the PCA year 2001-2002, unless the Commission authorizes a further increase in the pending PCA proceeding. Furthermore, Idaho Power noted that it would appear equitable to allocate the amount of the award to all classes of customers, not just the residential class the Intervenors sought to benefit. By this Order, we grant the total amount claimed by Intervenors pursuant to the Idaho Code and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
STATUTORY STANDARDS
Idaho Code § 61617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide the framework for awards of intervenor funding. Section 61617A provides that the Commission shall rely upon the following considerations in awarding funding to a given intervenor: (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. The statute also provides that the total award for all intervening parties combined shall not exceed $25,000 in any proceeding.
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 Intervenors’ Application for intervenor funding within the 14day time period provided for in Rule 164.
INTERVENORS’ APPLICATION
The Intervenors state that they materially contributed to the Commission decision by requesting that the Commission order Idaho Power to immediately reinstate certain demand-side management (DSM) programs using a portion of the funds sought through the combined PCA filing. Motion for Reinstatement of Demand-Side Management Programs at 2-3, 10-12 (hereinafter “Motion”). The Intervenors further advocated that the Commission initiate proceedings to evaluate the establishment of DSM programs and long-term funding methods to maintain them. Motion at 2-3, 10-12. The Commission “partially granted” Intervenors’ Motion by initiating Case No. IPC-E-01-13 and directed Idaho Power to “file a comprehensive demand-side management program by August 1, 2001....” Order No. 28722 at 28. The Intervenors note that this Order marked a significant change in Idaho energy policy, “reversing course from Idaho Power’s efforts in the mid- to late-1990’s to terminate the vast majority of its DSM programs.” Application at 2. Intervenors and Commission Staff also asked that the Commission implement a block rate design for residential customers to encourage conservation. Motion at 3. The Commission subsequently implemented a block rate design for residential customers. Order No. 28722 at 24-25. The Intervenors also argue that their filings differed materially from those submitted by Staff in that Staff only touched upon a low interest loan program while the Intervenors posed “supported and specific requests for reinstatement of DSM programs.” Application at 2.
The Intervenors allege that the following fees and costs were reasonably incurred in this proceeding:
Legal fees $5,130.00
William M. Eddie
51.3 hours @ $100 per hour

Expert witness and consultation fees $1,950.00
Anthony Jones
30 hours @ $65 per hour

Expert consultation fees $2,496.00
Advanced Energy Strategies
9.5 hours @ $85 per hour
18.5 hours @ $125 per hour, less a 20% discount

Costs $85.84
Photocopying & postal expenses

TOTAL $9, 661.84

The Application explains that the $100 hourly fee charged by Mr. Eddie is on the low end of fees charged by other Idaho attorneys of similar experience in specialized fields, and is well below rates at which Mr. Eddie has charged in other matters. Intervenors note that they do not seek compensation for the hours that attorney Sara Denniston has expended in this matter, nor for miscellaneous copying, mailing, or telephone expenses other than those associated with copying and mailing their Motion and Comments. The Application further explains that payment of the requested costs would constitute a financial hardship for Mary McGown, an individual Idaho Power ratepayer lacking financial resources, and for the non-profit organizations of Idaho Rivers United and Idaho Rural Council.
Intervenors state that they intend to remain involved in the further proceedings for disputed PCA issues and in the IPC-E-01-13 DSM case, but at a more limited level. Thus, this Application is the Intervenors’ “total request for funding” and they “waive any further request for intervenor funding in this combined PCA filing and in IPC-E-01-16.” Application at 2 (FN 1).
FINDINGS
We find that the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Mary McGown, Idaho Rivers United, and Idaho Rural Council have met the procedural requirements for intervenor funding according to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rule 162. The Intervenors made a sufficient showing of financial hardship, took a position that differed materially from the Commission Staff, and raised concerns of the general body of ratepayers. The costs incurred by the Intervenors are reasonable given the scope of the information presented.
The Intervenors materially contributed to the record considered by the Commission in this case. Specifically, the Intervenors’ detailed Motion prompted the Commission to initiate Case No. IPC-E-01-13, which will evaluate reinstating previous Idaho Power DSM programs or instituting new ones.
Rule 164 states that “an intervenor requesting intervenor funding must apply no later than fourteen (14) days after the last evidentiary hearing in a proceeding or the deadline for submitting briefs, proposed orders, or statements of position, whichever is last.” IDAPA 31.01.01.164. Although the Intervenors did not file their Application within fourteen days after the April 16, 2001 comment deadline, it can be argued that the “last evidentiary hearing in a proceeding” will take place on August 28-30, 2001 for the PCA issues still in dispute. Order No. 28738. This position is supported by Commission precedent in Order Nos. 20610 (Case No. U-1006-265) and 21513 (Case No. U-1002-67), in which the Commission did not consider a “two-phase” case concluded at the completion of the first phase. In Order No. 20610, the Commission observed that the case was not yet closed because a second phase remained to address revenue allocation and rate design issues. Consequently, it deferred ruling on intervenor funding until the end of the second phase. Order No. 20610 at 134. However, the Intervenors in the present case assert that this Application constitutes their “total request for funding” and that they “waive any further request for intervenor funding in this combined PCA filing and in IPC-E-01-16.” Application at 2 (FN 1). Given these assertions and waiver of future funding, the Commission finds it reasonable to award intervenor funding now rather than defer it to the end of proceeding.
Now we turn to the issue of which customer class(es) will fund this intervenor award. According to William M. Eddie’s Affidavit, Idaho Rivers United has primarily residential customer members, although a few may be within the small commercial or irrigation customer groups. The membership of the Idaho Rural Council is split between residential and irrigation customers. The Intervenors’ argue that because the majority of both organizations’ memberships fall with the residential customer group, any intervenor funding award should be chargeable to the residential group. Idaho Power Company argues that it is equitable to allocate an intervenor funding award to all customer classes. The Commission agrees with the Company’s contention that “the issues raised in this matter by Intervenors are of concern to the general body of Idaho Power customers.” Application at 6. The Commission further agrees that “reinstatement of guided conservation programs for all rate classes would allow customers to make informed decisions in how [to be efficient in] the use of electricity and reduce their exposure to rising rates.” Application at 6. We find that both the Intervenors’ call for a wide-range of DSM programs and their respective memberships extend beyond the residential class to which the Intervenors limit their representation. Combined with the fact that the DSM programs likely to be evaluated in Case No. IPC-E-01-13 could benefit more than just the residential class, it is reasonable to spread the cost of the intervenor funding award over all customer classes.
According to Rule 165.03, intervenor funding awards paid by a utility will be an allowable business expense in the pending rate case or, if the proceeding is not a rate case, in the utility’s next rate case. Since this present case is a rate tracker, we find it reasonable to allow Idaho Power to recover the funding award in the remaining portion of this case in the event that the Commission authorizes a further rate increase. Absent such authorization, the Company may include the payment of the award as an expense allocated to all customer classes in the Power Cost Adjustment for the PCA year 2001-2002.
O R D E R
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application for intervenor funding filed by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies on behalf of Mary McGown, Idaho Rivers United, and Idaho Rural Council is hereby granted in the amount of $9,661.84. Idaho Power is directed to pay this amount within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order. Idaho Power is allowed to include the payment of the award as an expense in the Power Cost Adjustment for the PCA year 2001-2002, unless the Commission authorizes a further rate increase in this pending PCA proceeding.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER as to this intervenor funding request. 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 § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of June 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE017_IPCE0111_ln4_intrvnrfndng
ORDER NO. 28756 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
June 22, 2001