20090413final_order_no_30771.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 13, 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR APPROVAL
OF CHANGES TO THE IRRIGATION PEAK
REWARDS PROGRAM.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSAL
TO RECOVER THE ANNUAL COST OF THEPROGRAM IN THE PCA.
CASE NO. IPC-08-
ORDER NO. 30771
On March 10 2009, Idaho Power Company filed a Motion to Close Case pursuant to
the Commission s Rules of Procedure 56 and 256. IDAPA 31.01.01.056 and .256. In its
Motion, Idaho Power noted that the Commission bifurcated the primary issues in this case, and
first considered the merits of the changes proposed to the Irrigation Peak Rewards Program.
January 14, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 30717 approving a Stipulation to make the
changes to the Peak Rewards Program. The separate issue in the case involved funding for the
program. In its initial Application, the Company proposed to fund the increased costs of the
Peak Rewards Program through the Company s Power Cost Adjustment (PCA). The Company
subsequently determined to request funding for the program through an increase in the Energy
Efficiency Rider. The Company filed a petition in a separate case to increase the Energy
Efficiency Rider to include funding for the Peak Rewards Program. See Case No. IPC-09-05.
Accordingly, Idaho Power filed its Motion to close this case as being fully resolved.
On March 20 2009, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. (Irrigators) filed a
response to Idaho Power s Motion to Close Case. The Irrigators do not oppose the Company
Motion to close the case, but filed a response to remind the Commission that the Irrigators
Application for Intervenor Funding had not been addressed. The Irrigators do not oppose closing
the case but ask the Commission to rule on its Application for Intervenor Funding that was filed
on December 12 2008. The Commission in this Order makes a determination on the Irrigators
request for intervenor funding, and closes this case as fully resolved.
The Commission in Order No. 30717 outlined the procedural history of this case.
The case was initiated by a Petition filed by Idaho Power Company, along with a Settlement
Stipulation signed by the Company, the Irrigators, and the Commission Staff. The Company
ORDER NO. 30771
requested the Commission modify the Irrigation Peak Rewards Program set forth in the
Stipulation filed with the Petition. After the Commission determined to bifurcate "approval of
program changes" from the question of program funding, the Commission issued two different
notices. A Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure informed interested parties
of the Stipulation and the proposed changes to the Peak Rewards Program. Written comments
were to be filed within 14 days. The second notice, relating to the question of funding program
changes, contained a Notice of Application and Notice of Intervention Deadline. This second
notice was the only notice issued by the Commission of an intervention opportunity. No
Petitions to Intervene were filed in response to the notice.
Although the Irrigators' application for intervenor funding states that it was filed
pursuant to Idaho Code 9 61-617A and the Commission s related rules, (IDAPA 31.01.01.161-
165), it is clear that the Irrigators' application does not meet the requirements of the statute or the
rules. First, the reference throughout Section 61-617 A is to a possible award to an intervenor.
For example, an award is appropriate if the Commission finds that "the participation of the
intervenor has materially contributed to the decision rendered by the commission " and that the
costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and would be a significant financial hardship for
the intervenor." Idaho Code 9 61-617A(2)(a)(b) (italics added). With this requirement in mind
the Commission s Rules also refer to awards to "intervenors." For example, the Commission
will make an award if it finds, among other things, that "the intervenor presentation materially
contributed to the Commission s decision " and that "the recommendations of the intervenor
differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff.
31.01.01.165.01.a and .d (italics added).
IDAPA
The Irrigators in this case never filed a Petition to Intervene, nor were they granted
intervention status. Because Idaho Code 9 61-617 A and the Commission s Rules are limited to
considering awards to intervenors, the Irrigators ' application in this case cannot be approved. In
addition, it is not clear that intervention in this case was necessary or that it would have been
appropriate. The Stipulation was achieved through a series of informal workshop meetings and
telephone calls. The Commission previously has denied requests for intervention in similar
cases, most recently in Case No. GNR-08-01. In that case, the Commission denied a Petition
to Intervene because the case consisted of informal workshops and comments. We noted that the
ORDER NO. 30771
case was "not yet the typical Commission proceeding where parties petition for intervenor status
and present evidence through formal testimony and/or exhibits." Order No. 30661 , p. 2.
The informal nature of the proceeding in this case results in a record that prevents the
Commission from making the necessary findings to award intervenor funding. For example
Commission Rule of Procedure 165 requires the Commission to find that "the recommendations
of the intervenor differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff.
IDAPA 31.01.01.165.01.d. Because this case proceeded informally and no hearings were
scheduled, the Commission Staff did not file testimony or exhibits. On this record, it is not
possible for the Commission to find that the Irrigators' recommendations differed materially
from the Staff s testimony and exhibits.
Because the Irrigators never requested intervention status, and because it is not
possible for the Commission to make the necessary findings to make an award for intervenor
funding, the application of the Irrigators for an award of intervenor funding is denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application of the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association, Inc. for an award for intervenor funding is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power s Motion to Close Case is granted
and this case is closed.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. 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 9 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30771
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of April 2009.
/.~
1M . KE TON PRES I ENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
f#u~
Je D. J well
Commission Secretary
bls/O:IPC-08-23 ws4
ORDER NO. 30771