20110418Application for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, Idaho 83702
[phone]
Cell: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
RECEIVED
2011 APR 15 PH 4: 50
April 15,2011
Jean Jewell
Secretar, Idaho Public Utilities Comiission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
Re: Case No. IPC-E-1O-27
Community Action Parnership Association of Idaho-Application for Intervenor Funding
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed are the original and seven (7) copies of the Application for Intervenor Funding of the
Community Action Parnership Association of Idaho in the above-referenced proceeding.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours truly,
e~~
#
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
BarNo. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
bmpurdy (g hotmaiL.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Parnership
Association of Idaho
RECEIVED
2Uri APR r 5 PH 4: 50
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION )
OF APPROPRIATE COST RECOVERY ) CASE NO. IPC-E-IO-27
MECHANISMS FOR IDAHO POWER'S )
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ) COMMUNITY ACTION
) PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
) TION'S APPLICATION FOR
) INTERVENOR FUNDING
)
COMES NOW, Applicant Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI)
and, pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01, petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the
above-captioned proceeding.
Rule 161 Requirements:
Idaho Power Company is a regulated electric public utility with gross Idaho intrastate
annual revenues exceeding three milion, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirements:
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 1
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, an iteiized list of
all expenses incurred by CAP AI in this proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." CAP AI
seeks total funding of $2,080.72.
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed findings and recommendations of CAP AI are set forth in the Comments
subiitted by CAPAI in this matter on March 4,2011 and, as those comments indicate, reflected
in the Settlement Stipulation itself executed by the majority of paries to this proceeding,
including CAPAI, and fied with the Comrssion on March 3, 2011. CAPAI proposed that the
Commission accept the terms of the Settlement Stipulation which it subiits constitute a fair and
reasonable mechanism for recovery of DSM investment by Idaho Power while preserving an
effective incentive for the Company to continue prudently investing in DSM.
Though the Stipulation proposed acceptance of certain aspects of Idaho Power's initial
application, it made certain modifications including rollng certain DSM investments into the
Company's annual PCA mechanism, establishing a mechanism for separating the DSM program
investments and allocation of their recovery from the customer class( es) that would have
otherwise been recovered through the existing tariff rider, capitalizing the Company's Custom
Efficiency incentive payments but extending the amortization period from the proposed four to
seven years, applying a carying charge to this regulatory asset equal to the Company's
authorized rate of return and, agreeing that the carying charge for the Rider deferral balance
would remain at 1 % (the same rate as applied to customer deposits).
CAP AI executed the Settlement Agreement unconditionally and proposed that the
Commission accept the Agreement as written.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
CAP AI paricipated in this case as a formal pary from the outset including analyzing the
Company's original Application, paricipating in settlement negotiations, engaging in frequent
communications with other paries, ultimately executing the Settlement Stipulation which was
presented to this Comrssion, and subiitting written comments.
Based on this as well as other reasons stated herein, CAP AI submits that the costs and
fees incurred in this case, and set forth in Exhibit "A," are reasonable in amount.
(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 funding for any given effort iight come
from a different variety of sources, but those sources are often uncertain in terms of amount,
tiiing, and whether they wil be available at all. CAP AI does not have "memberships" and,
therefore, does not receive member contributions of any kind. The unpredictabilty of CAPAI's
funding sources creates conditions or limitations on the scope and nature of eligible work.
CAP AI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionary" funds available for all potential matters
before the Commission. Some matters, furthermore, do not qualify for intervenor funding by
virtue of their nature.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funds and past awards by this
Commission, CAP AI would likely not be able to participate at all in cases before this
Commission. Even with intervenor funding, 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 funding becomes available.
Because CAP AI typically cannot afford to retain expert witnesses in all areas that are of
concern to low-income customers, it must be resourceful in utilizing the experience of its
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
Executive Director, attorney and low-income expert and rely on resources and tools readily
available to the public without charge. CAP AI and its representatives certainly make their best
of such resources in an effort to provide the Commission with information and perspectives that
are informed, accurate and, therefore, of use to the Comiission in reaching its decisions. It is
safe to say that CAPAI's attorney and low-income expert do not simply price their services at
otherwise applicable market rates but, rather, must take into consideration the financial means of
their client as a major factor. CAP AI respectfully subiits that this results in intervenor funding
petitions that are relatively modest under the circumstances. In summary, were it not for the
availability of intervenor funding, it is unlikely that CAPAI would be financially able to continue
representing an important and otherwise unrepresented and increasingly large segment of public
utility customers.
(05) Statement of Difference
Though the specifics of settlement discussions cannot be divulged, it is fair to say that
CAPAI took a position materially different from the Commission Staff. CAP AI was the only
party to this proceeding representing the specific interests of Idaho Power's low-income
customers. The manner in which the Company's low-income customers are treated effects the
general body of ratepayers. To the extent that reasonable investment in low-income customers'
interests assists them in remaining timely in paying their bils, reduces debt collection and bad
debt write-offs, improves overall Company cash-flow, etc., such investments benefit the general
body of ratepayers. As the national and local economies continue to suffer, CAPAI fils an
especially important role as the sole representative of an increasingly significant segment of
Idaho Power's largest customer class.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 4
06) Statement of Recommendation
CAPAI reiterates the statements made in Section (5) above. In addition, CAPAI notes
that although the Commission chose to defer approval of the entirety of the proposal set forth in
the Settlement Stipulation until Idaho Power's next general rate case, CAP AI's involvement stil
provided the Comrssion with a unique perspective not offered by any other formal pary to this
proceeding.
CAP AI further notes that although Idaho Power's Low-Income Weatherization Program
was not subject to the fiing in this case, some low-income customers iight be able to paricipate
in other residential conservation programs that are not low-income specific. The manner in
which investments in these programs are made and recovered by Idaho Power, and the viability
of their continued existence, is of importance to CAP AI's constituents, nearly all of whom are
residential customers. For many reasons, therefore, not the least of which is the fact that Idaho
Power's residential customer class is its largest, the proposals and recommendations made by
CAP AI are "of concern to the general body of utility users or consumers."
Furthermore, it is always the objective of CAPAI to contribute materially to the
Commission's decision on any issue in addresses in every case. Though this case resulted in a
stipulated settlement that all signatories agreed to, CAPAI intervened to ensure that any
measures ultimately proposed to the Commission involving DSM recovery were not
unnecessarily punitive to low-income customers from a financial standpoint. It is that objective
and role that CAP AI submits brought value to the negotiation table and the Settlement
Stipulation that resulted from the process.
CAPAI respectfully submits that although the Commission chose to not accept the
Stipulation in its entirety pending the filng by Idaho Power of a general rate case, no pary could
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 5
predict the Commission's final ruling and CAPAI's involvement was important, regardless of
hindsight. Further, CAP AI subiits that when the issues raised in this case are ultimately
addressed by the Commission, the matter wil have already been framed and focused thereby
facilitating a final resolution.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAP AI represents a specific Idaho Power customer class, it is the
residential class.
Rule 164 - Time To Apply
CAP AI notes that Rule 164 of the Comrssion's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01.164, provides:
Unless otherwise provided by order, 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 subiitting briefs,
proposed orders, or statements of position, whichever is last. Motions in
opposition to intervenor funding must be fied within fourteen (14) days
after the request for intervenor funding is filed.
This proceeding presents a somewhat unique procedural scenaro for purposes of
applying the Rule 164 fiing deadline. Pursuant to Procedural Order No. 32178, issued February
14,2011, the previously adopted procedural schedule in this matter was vacated and a "hearing
for oral argument" was scheduled for March 30, 2011. In its Order, the Commission noted that a
settlement agreement between the paries was anticipated. The Order further established a
schedule for pre-filing either testimony or comments by the parties. CAPAI elected to fie
comments, which it did on March 4, 2011.
Prior to the oral argument, CAP AI attempted to determine whether a formal contested
hearing would take place, or simply oral argument as Order 32178 seemed to suggest, but was
never able to clearly ascertain precisely what form the proceeding would take. The undersigned
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 6
had previously scheduled a vacation and, due to its execution of the Settlement Stipulation and
agreement with the position taken by the Conservation Paries in this matter, CAP AI notified the
Comrssion that it would not be represented at the oral argument and stood by its comments and
the terms of the Settlement Stipulation, as well as any position taken by the Conservation Paries
during oral argument.
To this day, CAPAI is not certain whether the March 30, 2011 event was a technical
hearng or oral argument. Further, CAPAI did not anticipate that the Commission would issue a
Final Order (No. 32217) two days after the March 30, 2011 proceeding. Under the
circumstances, and for purposes of applying the Rule 164 deadline, therefore, CAPAI
respectfully subiits that the date Final Order No. 32217 was issued, April 1,2011, should be the
appropriate date from which to begin the fourteen (14) day deadline for filing intervenor funding
applications, making that deadline April 15,2011.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 15th day of ApriL, 2011.
~~
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 15th day of April, 2011, I served a copy of
the foregoing document on the following by email and U.S. mail, first class postage.
Lisa D. Nordstrom
Donovan E. Walker
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
Inordstrom (gdahopower.com
dwalker(gidahopower .com
John R. Gale
Darlene Nemnich
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
rgale (g idahopower .com
dnemnich (gidahopower.com
Weldon Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
Weldon. stutzman (gpuc.idaho.gov
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & 0' Leary, PLLC
515 N. 2ih Street
PO Box 7218
Boise, ID 83702
peter(g richardsonandoleary .com
greg (g richardsonandoleary .com
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hil Road
Boise, ID 83703
dreading (g mindspring.com
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 North Sixth Street
Boise,ID 83701
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 8
botto (g idahoconservationleague.org
Nancy Hirsh
NW Energy Coalition
8111st Ave., Suite 305
Seattle, W A 98104
nancy(gnwenergy.org
Ken Miler
Snake River Allance
350 N. 9th St. , #B61O
kiiller(g snakeriveralliance.org
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge
& Bailey, Charered
201 E. Center
POBox 1391
Pocatello, ID 83204- 1391
elo(gracinelaw.net
Anthony Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, OH 44140
tony (g yankeL.net
DATED, this 15th day of April, 2011
/~~Brad M. Purdy ~;-
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 9
EXHIBIT "A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postage $45.72
Total Costs $45.72
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy - 14.5 hours (g $130.001hr.)$1,885.00
Expert Consultant (Teri Ottens - 3.0 hours (g $50.001h.) $150.00
Total Fees $2,035.00
$2,080.72Total Expenses
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 10