20111214Application for Intervenor Funding.pdf

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
t:: C E,iE r~:¡\
'ìí1.II! o,rr 1'~PII"1 li: Li2i.uil ',-",J V
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE
TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF
IDAHO
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-II-08
)
)
) COMMUNITY ACTION
) PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
) TION OF IDAHO'S PETITION
) FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
)
)
COMES NOW, the Community Action Parnership Association of Idaho (CAPA!) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617 A and Rules 161-165 of the Commssion's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01, petitions this Commssion 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 millon, 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 Commssion's Rules of Procedure, an itemized list of
all expenses incurred by CAP AI in this proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." CAP AI
seeks total funding of $19,750.00.
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed findings and recommendations of CAP AI are set forth in the direct
testimony of Teri Ottens fied in this matter. CAP AI offers the following synopsis of its
recommendations and involvement in this proceeding.
CAP AI opposes the settlement agreement executed by the other paries to this proceeding
and is the only pary to do so. CAP AI respectfully recommends that the Commssion find that
the settlement is not in the best interests of low-income customers as well as the residential class
and all customers as a whole, without an increase to Idaho Power's low-income weatherization
program (WAQC) of $1.5 millon.
For the reasons advanced during hearng and summarized below, CAPAI respectfully
recommends that the Commssion reject the proposed settlement or order that Idaho Power's
WAQC funding be increased from its current level by $1.5 millon.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAP AI submits that its requested costs are reasonable in amount. CAP AI fully
paricipated in every aspect of this case from its review of the Company's original filing through
settlement negotiations to full technical hearng on the issues and concerns raised by CAP AI,
covering a period in excess of seven months. CAP AI engaged in the service of and response to
discovery, paricipated in settlement conferences, fied both the direct and surrebuttal testimonies
of Teri Ottens and was briefing issues raised by motion the day prior to hearing. Because there
are no government agencies or intervenors who regularly intervene in proceedings before this
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
Commission advocating the interests of the residential class exclusively, and because a rapidly
increasing number of customers in that class are joining the ranks of low-income, the importance
of this proceeding from CAP AI's perspective, was broadened in depth and scope.
Furthermore, the simultaneous pendency of four general rate cases and a case initiated
by Rocky Mountain Power challenging the cost-effectiveness of all low-income weatherization
programs have created an extremely important but challenging scenaro for an intervenor with
limited resources such as CAP AI. CAP AI considers this one of the most significant cases it has
intervened in thus far since it first formally appeared before this Commssion in Idaho Power's
2003 general rate case. As a result, CAPAI expanded its efforts substantially in this proceeding
and incurred costs commensurate with those expanded efforts.
Though this petition is obviously limited to a request for costs incurred in this
proceeding, CAPAI respectfully submits that the greater context surrounding this case should be
taken into consideration when viewing the reasonableness of CAP AI's funding request. Though
CAP AI was aware that Idaho Power, A VISTA, and Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) intended to
file general rate cases earlier this year, it did not anticipate the nature of Rocky Mountain's filing
in Case No. PAC-E-11-13 in which RMP, among other things, called into question the cost-
effectiveness of its own low-income weatherization program. CAP AI did not anticipate the
framng of RMP's application and the results of the study fied in support of the application
(especially considering that the Commission had doubled funding for the program just months
earlier), but was immediately concerned over what it correctly predicted would result in a
"domino effect" by which the LIW A programs of both Idaho Power and A VISTA would be cast
into doubt by implication as a result of RMP's fiing.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
Regarding the rate cases, CAP AI's paramount concern was Idaho Power's W AQC
program and the fact that it had not received a funding increase in nearly a decade. The RMP
11-13 filing, paricularly the timing of that fiing, created a much more complex dynamc than
would otherwise have existed. Because of its long-held belief that the Commssion has
considered relative parity in funding between the electric LIW A programs to be an important
objective and principle, and for a varety of other reasons, it became immediately apparent to
CAPAI last spring that intervention in all three electric rate cases was amply waranted,
paricularly if the RMP 11-13 fiing had the anticipated effect that it did on the pending rate
cases.
The challenge for CAP AI was heightened when Staff and all other paries agreed to settle
both the Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain rate cases before CAP AI even had the opportnity to
conduct discovery. CAP AI did join the A VISTA settlement because of that utility's LIW A
funding level and other concessions it agreed to for its low-income customers. But with respect
to the remaining two electric rate cases, CAP AI believed it was in a position where the stakes
had been substantially raised and the circumstances compelled CAP AI to reject settlement in the
Idaho Power and RMP cases and take its involvement to a higher level than in prior
interventions.
The simultaneous pendency of multiple cases unfortunately did not create synergies in
terms of the effort and costs invested in this case by CAP AI and its representatives, but actually
increased those efforts and costs. This is due to the unique interrelationship between the cases
regarding low-income issues and the fact that any action taken, strategy formulated or decision
made by CAP AI and other paries in any of the pending cases, had a complex and unpredictable
ripple effect on the other cases.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 4
Regarding the scope and depth of its involvement in this case, CAP AI strived not to offer
expert opinions on issues such as revenue requirement, rate of return, rate spread or rate design,
but to discuss issues from the perspective of many customers, low-income and non-low-income
alike. CAP AI is concerned that many customers cary a perception that there currently is a trend
in which utilities fie general rate cases nearly every year seeking increases greater than they are
likely to receive, enter into an expedited settlement process, then seemingly make substantial
compromise by reducing their requests to a reasonable leveL.
Regarding issues most directly affecting low-income customers, CAP AI notes that
W AQC is the only recourse that low-income customers have to shield themselves from constant
and rapid rate increases. This lack of what CAP AI has urged is a fair, just and reasonable means
of softening the blow of the requested rate increase was ultimately the reason that CAPAI could
not justify joining in the settlement.
While CAP AI's involvement and positions taken in this proceeding might have put it
somewhat on its own, CAP AI believes they were an essential counterpoint to the prevailing
settlement and positions of the signatory paries. Regardless of the Commssion's ultimate
decision in this case, CAP AI represented a significant group of customers and offered a different
perspective that hopefully contributed to the Commission's decision.
Regarding the costs set forth iú Exhibit A, CAP AI notes that its legal counsel and expert
witness on low-income issues charge rates that are quite low for their respective fields and levels
of experience. Furthermore, these fees have increased only slightly over roughly the past eight
years since CAP AI's first intervention before this Commssion in Idaho Power's 2003 general
rate case.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 5
. Because of CAP AI's limited resources and the diffculties of paying costs up front,
CAPAl s attorney and low-income expert do not simply price their services at otherwise
applicable market rates, but take into consideration the financial means of their client as a major
factor. CAP AI respectfully submits that this results in intervenor funding petitions that are
relatively modest under the circumstances. CAP AI submits, therefore, 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 might come
from a different variety of sources, including governmental. CAP AI does not have
"memberships" and, therefore, does not receive member contrbutions of any kind. Many of
CAP AI' s funding sources are unpredictable and impose conditions or limitations on the scope
and nature of work eligible for funding. CAP AI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionar"
funds available for all projects. Some matters before this Commssion, furthermore, do not
qualify for intervenor funding by virtue of their nature.
Regardless of what procedural course the Commssion chooses in this case with respect
to W AQC funding, CAP AI relies heavily on the economies of scale and potential for intervenor
funding awards inherent in general rate cases. As noted in the direct testimony of Teri Ottens
fied in this proceeding, the uncertainty of informal workshop proceedings, in terms of outcome,
duration and whether intervenor funding wil even be a possibility, caused CAPAI to consider it
wise to fully air all of its issues in this proceeding, rather than defer to a potential proceeding
sometime in the indefinite future. Though its involvement, and therefore costs incurred, in this
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 6
case were greater than in prior cases, CAP AI continues to believe that it is far more cost effective
to intervene and paricipate in general rate cases and seek resolution of its issues.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funds and past awards by this
Commssion, CAP AI would not be able to paricipate in cases before this Commssion
representing an important and otherwise unrepresented segment of regulated public utilty
customers. Even with intervenor funding, paricipation in Commssion 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.
(05) Statement of Difference
CAP AI believes it has helped create and maintain a positive working relationship with
Staff since 2003 and that this relationship should and wil continue. In this proceeding, however,
it is quite clear that there were material differences between the respective proposed findings and
recommendations of Staff and CAP AI.
(06) Statement of Recommendation
As already noted, CAP AI took on an expanded role in this case believing that the subset
of customers it represents is increasing and includes those currently not considered "low-income"
as that term is defined for the numerous purposes the Commssion is well aware of, but who
might qualify as such soon.
Furthermore, CAP AI has long submitted that providing assistance to a utility's low-
income customers provides system-wide benefits in numerous respects including, but not limited
to, the fact that low-income weatherization programs constitute cost-effective energy resources
and that programs designed to assist low-income customers through education and by other
means reduces the percentage of those customers who might be lost to the Company's system
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 7
due to inabilty to pay their bils. Therefore, the proposals and recommendations made by
CAP AI are "of concern to the general body of utility users or consumers."
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAP AI represents a specific Idaho Power customer class, it is the
residential class.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED, this 13th day of December, 2011.
Brad M. Purdy
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 13th day of December, 2011, 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
Jason B. Wiliams
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
lnordstrom (gidahopower.com
dwalker(g idahopower.com
jwiliams (gidahopower.com
GregoryW. Said
Idaho Power Company
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, ID 83702
gsaid (g idahopower.com
Donald L. Howell
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
Don.howell (gpuc.idaho.gov
Karl.klein (gpuclidaho. gov
Eric L. Olsen
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
elo(gracinlaw.net
Anthony Yankel
29814 Bay Vilage, OH 44140
tony (gyankel.net
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
515 N. 27th St.
Boise, ID 83702
peter(grichardsonandoleary.com
greg (grichardsonandoleary.com
Don Reading
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 9
6070 Hil Rd.
Boise, ID 83703
dreading (gmindspring.com
Arhur Perry Bruder
United States Deparment of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington D.C. 20585
Arthur. bruder(g hg .doe.gov
Kurt J. Boehm
36 E. Seventh St., Suite 1510
Cincinnati, OH 45202
kboehm (gbkllawfirm.com
Thorvald A. Nelson
Holland & Har
6380 S. Fiddlers Green Circle
Suite 500
Greenwood Vilage, CO 80111
tnelson (g hollandhar.com
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. Sixth St.
Boise, ID 83702
botto (g idahoconservation.org
Ken Miler
Snake River Allance
P.O. Box 1731
Boise, ID 83701
kmiller(g snakeriveralliance.org
Nancy Hirsch
NW Energy Coalition
811 1 st Ave., Suite 305
Seattle, W A 98104
nancy(gnwenergy.org
Dean J. Miler
420 E. Bannock
Boise, ID 83702
joe (gmcdevitt -miller. com
Scott Paul, CEO
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 10
Hoku Materials, Inc.
One Hoku Way
Pocatello, ID 83204
spaul (ghokucoæ.com
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 11
1'"
DATED, ths ~ day of December, 2011
Bra M. Pudy
-~~
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 12
EXHIT "A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postae $235.00
Total Costs $235.00
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Pudy -134.00 hour ~ $130.001h.) $17,420.00
Expert Witness (Teri Otens - 42.0 hour ~ $50.001h.) $2,100.00
Tota Fees $19,515.00
Total Expenses $19,755.00
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 13