20091223ICL Comments.pdf

ww.idahoconseraton.org
Idaho PUblic Utir
Office of th~ i~s Commission
R E' eE'l V ie~tary
DEC 222009
Boise, Idaho
Conservation League
PO Box 84, Boise, ID 83701
208.345.6933
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
December 21,2009
RE: Idaho Conservation League Comments on the Application of Idao Power Company for an
Accounting Order to Amortize Additional Accumulated Deferral Income Tax Credits and an
Order Approving a Rate Cas Moratorium, Case No. IPC-E-09-30
Honorable Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Application of Idao Power Company for an
Accounting Order to Amortize Additional Accumulated Deferral Income Tax Credits and an
Order Approvig a Rate Case Moratorium. For thirty-four years, the Idaho Conservation League
(lCL) has been Idaho's voice for clean water, clean air, and widemess-values that are the
foundation to Idaho's extraordinar quaity of life. As Idaho's largest state-based conservation
organization we represent over 9,500 members, many of whom have a deep personal interest in
protecting our clean air, clean water, and quality of life.
ICL's comments pertain to the procedure, not the substance of the Stipulation. ICL does not
necessary advocate that the Commission reject the application but seeks clarfication on when
public notice and the opportunity for the public to paricipate should be required. Specificaly,
ICL questions how the decision on who could be a pary to these negotiations was made and
which IPUC Rules of Procedure apply to this situation. ICL's position is that there should have
been public notice and an opportunity for the public to participate in the negotiations leadig up
to the Stipulation and that the IPUC Rules of Procedure do not provide for this situation.
i. SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
The Stipulation of issue is effectively the settlement of a rate case. Idao Power fied a notice of
intent to fie a general rate case on Augut 28th, 2009. On September 21,2009 the Company
met with parties of its own choosing to discuss an agreed-upon retur on equity, which then
morphed into a discussion about several ratemaking and revenue sharg provisions and the rate
case moratorium included in the Stipulation. As a result of the Stipulation, the Company did not
file its rate case.
It is ICL's understanding that Idaho Power invited Paries to paricipate in these recent
negotiations based on those who intervened in the Company's last general rate case. This is not
sufficien t. Awareness and in terest of energy issues is growing. As electricity prices rise and the
public becomes more aware of the impact energy consumption has on the envionment more
people want the opportunity to lear about and participate in utilty resource planning and
reguation. More public participation leads to a more robust discussion of energy issues, which
results in better energy policy and reguation. Moreover, the public has a right to participate in
decisions that affect them. The ability to paricipate in settling a rate case should not be based on
a previous intervenor status.
ICL did not participate in the last general rate case because the organization did not have an
energy program at that time, and therefore, ICL did not receive an invitation to paricipate in
these negotiations. ICL has an interest in this proceeding because the mission of ICL's energy
program is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throug energy efficiency. Furhermore, many ICL
members who are Idao Power customers have an interest in developing cost effective, clean
energy resources. The settlement of a rate case or stipulation could have adversely effected
funding for effciency and clean energy, and therefore, ICL had a right to paricipate. ICL did not
lear about the ongoing negotiations until a few days before the Stipulation was filed when there
was no time for meaningful input. ICL and any other party who might be affected by the
outcome of this Stipulation should have been given the opportunity to paricipate in these
negotiations.
II. APPliCATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
It is unclear which IPUC Rules of Procedure apply to this situation. IPUC Rules of Procedure
271-280 govern settlements, but the rues only refer to "settlements in formal proceedings." If
there was no docket fied prior to the negotiations, is this a formal proceedig? If this is not a
formal proceedig, which IPUC Rules of Procedure apply?
If this is a formal proceeding and Rules 271-280 apply, then it is uncertain whether the correct
procedure was followed. Rules 271 and 272 distingush between passive and active settlements.
Passive settlements are settlements in which, "a pary agrees to concur in, accept, or not to oppose
another pary's positions previously on record with the Commission." IPUC Rule 271. Active
settlements are settlements in which, "one (1) or more parties negotiate an agreement differig
from positions of one (1) or more of the paries previously on record. IPUC Rule 272. The
Stipulation is an active settlement because the Paries negotiated an agreement. Under the
process for an active settlement, the Commission Staff, as a pary to the settlement, must first
notify al other paries that it has begu negotiations and, "must give al other paries an
opportunity to paricipate in or be apprised of the course of the settlement negotiations before a
final settlement agreement is reached." Id. If there has been no formal docket filed and no
opportunity to intervene, how can the Commission Staff know who al interested parties are?
Without public notification it is impossible to know what members of the public would
paricipate if given the opportunity.
III. CONCLUSION
When negotiating a settlement that affects al customer classes, the Company sending out
invitations to a select group of paries is not sufficient public notice. The public should be alowed
to paricipate in a settlement of this magnitude. Ths Stipulation affects al Idaho Power
customers, and they should have been given the opportunity to paricipate.
ICL does not believe there was any malicious intent in the creation of this Stipulation but finds
the process troublesome. Settling a case before it has been fied when the public has not been
given an opportunity to intervene sets a dangerous precedent that deals can be made without
2
public paricipation with a self-selected group of parties. ICL understands the Parties' desire to
settle, and in this case it may be in the best interest of Idaho Power's customers. However, in the
future that may not be the case. Because it is unclear who gets to decide which paries get to
paricipate in situations like this, we ask for the Commission to provide gudance on thi matter.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. If you have questions about our
interest in this matter, please contact me at [phone] ext. 12 or at
bbridgei1lJidahoconservation .org.
Sincerely,
¿)fJ~h-'-'~--'
¿,
Betsy Bridge
Energy Efficiency Associate
3