20100106Intervenor Funding Petition.pdf

4'..
"!+-
EI\/REC .IF
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES CO~~~ PM 4: ,9
IN THE MATTEER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AN
ACCOUNTING ORDER TO AMORTIZE
ADDITIONAL ACCUMULATED DEFERRL
INCOME TAX CREDIT AND APPROVING A
RATE CASE MORATORIUM
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-09-30
)
) CAPAlS APPLICATION
) FOR INTERVENOR
) FUNDING
)
)
)
COMES NOW, Applicant Community Action Partnership Association ofIdaho (CAPAI)
and, pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617 A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01, petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor fuding in the
above-captioned proceeding.
Rule 161 Requirements
Idaho Power is a regulated, electrc public utilty with gross Idaho intrastate, anual
revenues exceeding three milion, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, an itemized list of
all expenses incured by CAPAI in this proceeding is attched hereto as Exhibit "A." CAPAI
also points out that, as set forth in the prefied, direct testimony ofTen Ottens, this proceeding
has taken a procedural path that, most likely, is the first of its kind. IDAPA 31.01.01.164 states,
in par:
164. TIME TO APPLY (Rule 164).
Unless otherwise provided by order, an intervenor requesting intervenor
fuding must apply no later than foureen (14) days after the last
1
evidentiary hearing in a proceeding or the deadline for submitting briefs,
proposed orders or statements of position, whichever is last.
Because of the unique procedural nature of this case, it is not entirely clear when the
foureen (14) day period would commence. For example, Order No. 30960 states that depending
on input regarding the Settlement Stipulation the Commission might, in its discretion, set this
case for formal hearing. In addition, though Order No 30960 does not provide for responsive
comments or testimony, Idaho Power filed responsive testimony to the Idaho Conservation
League's comments. Though CAPAI does not object to this, it merely ilustrates that the time at
which the foureen (14) day period to file an application for intervenor fuding is not yet known
with certinty. If the original comment deadline of December 22,2009 is indeed the date by
which the foureen day deadline commenced, then today is the deadline for filing an Application
for fuding and, to possibly err on the side of caution, CAP AI hereby submits its Application on
this day. Thus, CAP AI simply wishes to point out that should this matter proceed to hearng or
require additional, significant work, the amount of expenses and costs might require amendment.
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed findings and recommendations of CAP AI are set forth in the direct,
prefied testimony of Teri Ottens and interwoven throughout the settlement stipulation to which
CAP AI was a signatory. The Stipulation largely speaks for itself and CAP AI wil not endeavor
to summarize it. Though, as briefly discussed below, CAPAI had a disagreement with certain
other paries, including the Commission Staff regarding the proper procedure by which to craf
and execute the Stipulation, CAP AI supports the general substance of the Settlement and
believes that it is in the best interests of Idaho Power's low-income customers.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
2
CAP AI submits that the costs and fees incured in this case, and set forth in Exhibit "A,"
are reasonable in amount. As stated in the testimony of Teri Ottens, CAPAI fully paricipated in
every settlement discussion conducted in this case and provided input throughout the process. In
addition to the numerous meetings conducted, there were significant other forms of
communication, analysis, side bar discussions and other activities that required considerable
work on the par of CAP AI personnel and its legal counsel.
(04) Explanation of Cost Statement
CAP AI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho. CAP AI's fuding for any given effort might come
from a different varety of sources, including governental. Many of those funding sources,
however, are unpredictable and impose conditions or limitations on the scope and natue of work
eligible for fuding. CAP AI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionary" fuds available and
what little exists must cover a variety of competing projects. CAP AI has incurred considerable
expense paricipating in this very importt proceeding. There are numerous other examples of
projects worthy of CAP AI's involvement but for which funding is unavailable.
Thus, were it not for the availabilty of intervenor fuds and past awards by ths
Commission, CAP AI would not be able tp paricipate in cases before ths Commission leaving a
gap not likely to be filled by any other entity. Even with intervenor fuding, participation in
Commission cases constitutes a significant financial hardship because CAP AI must pay its
expenses as they are incurred, not if and when intervenor fuding becomes available.
(05) Statement of Difference
The procedural handling of this case created numerous quandaries. Non-signatory
paricipants to the settlement discussions are not prohibited from commenting on any aspect of
3
the Settlement Stipulation. Signatories, however, are somewhat limited from doing so.
Specifically, Section IV(9) of the Stipulation states, in part, that "other than any testimony filed
in support of the approval of this Stipulation, and except to the extent necessar for a Pary to
explain before the Commission its own statements and positions with respect to the Stipulation
all statements made and positions taken in negotiations relating to this Stipulation shall be
confidential and wil not be admissible in evidence in this or any other proceeding."
CAP AI fully recognizes its obligation to honor this provision, but because IDAP A
31.01.01.162(05) requires that an applicant for funding must have taen a materially different
position than that of the Commission Staff, in order to "explain before the Commission its own
statements and positions with respect to the Stipulation," and because the Idaho Conservation
League and the Snake River Allance fully addressed the issue in their comments CAPAI notes
that it took a materially different position from the Commission Staff regarding the procedure by
which the Stipulation was crafted, executed, and put before the public. As ICL and Snake River
noted, the procedure utilized arguably contains shortcomings and sets a precedent that might be
regrettble. Suffce it to say that CAP AI vociferously and frequently raised procedural concerns
during the course of the settlement meetings. The Commission Staff took a different viewpoint.
Nothing in the preceding paragraph should be construed to suggest that CAP AI does not
continue to support the Settlement Stipulation. CAPAI believes, however, that the procedure
employed should be carefully examined for the purpose of future cases. CAP AI respectfully
urges the Commission to approve the Settlement Stipulation but consider providing guidance for
future reference.
4
06) Statement of Recommendation
To a large extent, the Settlement Stipulation, and how it benefits the general body of
ratepayers, speaks for itself. Due to the restriction on interpreting or explaining the Stipulation,
CAP AI notes the obvious benefit of a rate moratorium. There were many other issues and
considerations that the paricipants took into serious consideration and an attempt to fuly explain
them might prove self-defeating. Rule 162(6) directs that a given applicant for intervenor
fuding explain why their paricular recommendation or position addresses issues of concern to
the general body of ratepayers. Because the majority of paricipants signed the Stipulation it,
essentially provides the reasons why the Stipulation addresses areas of concern to the general
body of ratepayers. Also, it is fair to say that each signatory had slightly different reasons for
why it supported the Stipulation and why those reasons are of concern to the general body of
ratepayers. Because of the restraint on positions taen or statements made, it would seem to
violate the confidentiality provision of the Stipulation to discuss any paricular pary's list of
reasons why the Stipulation is in the interests of all ratepayers.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAPAI represents a specific Rocky Mountain Power customer class, it
is the residential class.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, this 5th day of Januar, 2009.
~;£/'ì .._- 2=. ., _ .......... t~BradMP~""~
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on Januar 5th, 2009, I caused the APPLICATION FOR
INTERVENOR FUNDING on the following via email attachment, to be followed by hard copy,
U.S. Postage.
Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, Idaho 83702
Peter J. Richardson
515 North 27th St.
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
Eric L. Olson
P.O. Box 1391
201 E. Center
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
Kur J. Boehm
36 East Seventh St., Suite 1510
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Conley Ward
60 1 West Banock St.
P.O. Box 2720
Boise,ID 83701-2720
Arhur Perr Bruder
U.S. Dept. of Energy
LOOO Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
Ken Miler
Snake River Allance
P.O. Box 1731
Boise,ID 83701
Betsy Bridge
Idaho Conservation League
710 North Sixth St.
6
. .
P.O. Box 844
Boise, ID 83701
)~:-~cQ=:
Brad M. Purdy , ...
7
~ .
..
EXHIBIT" A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postage $45.00
Total Costs $45.00
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy - 29.23 hours ê $130.00/h.)$3,800.00
$450.00Expert(Teri Ottens - 10 hours ê $45.00/h.)
Total Fees:$4,250.00
Total Expenses:$4,295.00
8