20090505Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

c:: "
t!--0:o
Eric L. Olsen, ISB #4811
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE &
BAILEY, ClùTERED
P.O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
PE u
2D09 ~fAY -L¡ Pl1 Ll: 39
Attorneys for parintervenor Idaho Irigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR APPROVAL
OF CHANGES TO THE IRRGATION PEAK
REWARDS PROGRA.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-23
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PROPOSAL
RECOVER THE ANAL COST OF THE
PROGRAM IN THE PCA.
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC.'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ("LIP A"), by and
through its attorneys, hereby respectfully petition the Commission for reconsideration of
Order No. 30771, dated April 13, 2009, issued in the above case (the "Order") pursuat
to RP's 70-76,161-165, and 331-333 and Idaho Code §§ 61-617A and 61-626.
BACKGROUND
Ths case stems from the stipulation that the paries entered into and that the
Commission approved in IPC E-07-08. See Order No. 30508. Specifically, the
stipulation provided, among other thgs, that Idaho Power Company ("IPC") and the
lIPA would implement a workig group prior to June 19,2009, to (a) design and
implement at new dispatchable irrgation demand response program and (b) develop and
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
review the methodology used in determng the amount of incentive payments for the
Peak Rewards Program and the new dispatchable program paricipants. See IPC E-07-08
Stipulation, at 5.
The first meeting was held on June 11,2009, at IPC's facilties in Heybur, Idaho.
Representatives from IPC, LIP A, and Commission Staff were in attendance, along with
local farers. From this meeting IPC prepared a proposal that outlined the terms of the
new dispatchable program and pricing of the incentives for it and the existing Peak
Rewards Program. A series of conference calls were then held to review and comment
on the terms of these programs and pricing matters in August through October. These
conference calls were all attended by IPC, LIP A, and Commission Staff representatives
and they resulted in the Stipulation among the paries that was fied in this matter on
November 10,2009 (the "Stipulation"). Concurently, the lIPA fied comments in
support of the Stipulation.
On December 3, 2008, the Commssion issued Order Nos. 30686 and 30694.
Order 30686 dealt with the merits of the changes to the Peak Rewards Program and
provided it would proceed under modified procedure and required that comments be filed
with the Commission withn 14 days of its date. Order 30694 dealt with IPC's request
this case dealing with its desire to recover the costs associated with revisions to the Peak
Rewards Program under the PCA. An intervention deadline was given for ths bi-
fucated portion of the proceedings. Given the bifucation, the lIP A did not intervene
pursuat to Order No. 30694 because it was unsure procedurally whether it needed to
formally intervene under the circumstaces because it was a par to the Stipulation and
had already filed comments at the time of the filing of ths case.
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
Prior to the deadline for submittg comments pursuant to Order No. 30686, the
LIP A filed its Application for Intervenor Funding on December 16, 2008 (the
"Application") so that the Commission could consider the application with its ruling on
the Peak Rewards Program changes. On Januar 14,2009, the Commssion issued Order
No. 30717 which approved the changes to the Peak Rewards Program. However, this
order did not address the lIPA's Application. lIPA's legal counsel spoke to Commission
Staff about ths issue on Januar 15, 2009, and was told that the Commssion was
deferring its ruling on the Application pending the closing of the case.
On Februar 10,2009, lIPA representatives paricipated with IPC and
Commission Staff representatives on a conference call to address the fuding issue of the
changes to the Peak Rewards Program. IPC, lIPA, and Commission Staff were the only
paries paricipating because no one else had intervened in ths par of the case.
Subsequently, IPC gave up the idea of recovering the cost of the Peak Rewards Programs
through the PCA and filed a Motion to Close Case on March 10, 2009. The lIPA fied its
Response to this motion on March 20, 2009 stating that it did not object to the closing of
the case, but asked that the Commission rule on its Application. On Apri113, 2009, the
Commission issued the Order denying the lIPA's Application on the basis that (1) the
LIP A was not properly considered an "Intervenor" in this case and/or (2) that the informal
nature of the proceedings did not provide the Commssion with a record suffcient to
make the required findings for an award of intervenor fuding. See Order No. 30771 at
2-3.
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC.'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
ARGUMENT
Given the policy behind the Intervenor Funding Statute to "encourage
participation at all stages of all proceedings before" the Commission and in light of the
precedence of the Commission making awards of intervenor fuding made in prior,
similar cases, the LIP A respectfuly believes that the Commssion has erred in denying its
Application in this Case. LC. § 61-617A(1) (emphasis added). As such, the lIPA
respectively requests that the Commssion reconsider its denial of its Application in ths
case on the following bases.
First, the Commission has made awards of intervenor fuding to the IIP A on prior
cases that were processed under modified procedure and no intervention deadline was
order by the Commssion. In IPC-E-03-05, the IIPA filed comments on the PCA
objecting to IPC's use of certain normalized sales data makng certin calculations under
the PCA which the Commssion found to be materiaL. Other issues were also contested
by Commission Sta and the Industral Customers of Idaho Power ("Industrial
Customers"). Rather than hold technical hearings, a settlement conference was ordered
to allow the paries to work out these issues. The IIP A, Commission Staff and the
Industral Customers paricipated in the settlement conference and in subsequent
conference calls that ended up in a resolution of the matter. Although, the IIP A had not
formally intervened it had fied comments which the commission found were material to
the case and the Commission granted the IIPA par status in Order No. 29258. At the
conclusion of the proceedings, the IIP A fied an application for intervenor fuding and
the Commssion granted par of the IIPA's request in Order No. 29371.
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
In IPC-E-04-23, the Commission had order that workshops be held to address
issues raised about IPC' s cost of service study in its general rate case IPC- E-04- 23. An
intervention deadline was not set by the Commission. A series of workshops where held
to address the issues raised in that general rate case on cost of service issues. The
workshops resulted in a in a final report being submitted by all the paries to the
proceedings. The lIP A filed an application for intervenor fuding for the costs associated
with paricipating in these proceedings and the Commission granted that request in par
as provided in Order No. 29868. In addressing the award, the Commission relied on the
general policy of the Intervenor Funding Statute to "encourage participation at all stages
of all proceedings before" before the Commssion. See Order No. 29868 at 3.
In this case, the lIP A should be granted pary status due to fact that it was a par
to the Stipulation and fied comments in support thereof similar to the procedural
situations present in IPC-E-03-05 and IPC-E-04-23. This is due to the fact that the
comments were material in assisting the Commission in addressing the changes to the
Peak Rewards Program and were relied on by them in issuing its Order No. 30771. As a
result, a formal request for intervenor status was not necessar because the IIPA's
comments in this case gave all the required information needed under a formal petition
for intervention under Rules of Procedure 72 and 73 and the Commission had already
indirectly determed that the lIP A was a pary to ths case.
In the alternative, the lIP A files concurently herewith a late fied Petition to
Intervene in ths case. The petition is made under Rule of Procedure 73 and on the basis
that it was not clear whether the LIP A needed to formally intervene to be given pary
status in light ofthe fact that it was a par to the Stipulation and that it filed comments in
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
support of the Stipulation. Furer, the granting of the LIP A intervenor status would not
prejudice any paries to this case in that it does not expand any issues raised and in light
of the fact that no other paries who were not already paries to the Stipulation sought to
intervene. Also, granting intervention status also comports with the policy behind the
Intervenor Funding Statute of encouraging paricipation in all matters and at all stages of
the proceedings as was evident when the Commssion issued prior Order Nos. 29371 and
29868.
Second, ths is an appropriate proceeding whereby the Commssion can make a
determination as to the application of Rules of the Procedure 161 though 165.
Specifically, the Commission has made awards of intervenor fuding in similar
proceedings such as those ofIPC-E-03-05 and IPC-E-04-23. The record is sufficient in
that there was testimony and comments fie and a stipulation presented to the
Commission upon which it based its Order No. 30771. If that record is not sufficient to
make a ruling on intervenor fuding, then how can it be used as a basis to issue Order No.
307177 It canot, or else the Commission is saying that it acted arbitrarily when it issued
Order No. 30717, and that obviously was not the case. Furher, Commission Sta
paricipated at all stages of these proceedings and they can assist the Commission in
making the determinations of whether the requirements of Rule of Procedure 165 are met.
Finally, the intent and purose of the Intervenor Funding Statute is to encourage
paricipation in all proceedings and at all stages before the Commssion. LC. § 61-
217 A(1). This includes informal matters as in this case. If the Commission limits the
situtions wherein it allows awards of intervenor fuding to only fuly litigated cases and
matters, then it is (1) discouraging paries like the IIPA from ever settling cases or
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
.~working informally with IPC, other utilities and the Commission Staff and (2)
discouraging parties like the LIP A from paricipating in a broader aray of cases because it
will not have the financial resources to do so. This frstrates the puroses ofthe
Intervenor Funding Statute and will prevent futue of programs like the dispatchable
interrption option that was presented in this case and its associated costs savings from
ever being presented and considered by the Commission.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the LIP A respectfully requests that the Commission
reconsider its Order No. 30771 and find that the LIP A is a proper par and/or intervenor
to this case and rule on the merits of its Application.
DATED this 4th day of May, 2009.
RACIN, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE &
BAILEY, ClùTERED
By
SE Attorney for
Pumpers Assn., Inc.
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7
"'
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on ths 4st day of May, 2009, I served a tre, correct
and complete copy of the foregoing document, to each of the followig, via the method
so indicated:
Jean D. Jewell, Secreta
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
P.O. Box 83720
472 W. Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
j j ewell(iuc. state.id. us
U Via Hand Delivery
Baron L. Kline
Donavan E. Walker
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83720-0070
Inordstrom~idahopower.com
bkline~idahopower.com
U Via E-MaillU.S.Mail
'~~L",ERICL.ON )~
IDAHO IRRGATION PUMERS ASSOCIATION, INCo'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8