20050930final order no 29878.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 30, 2005
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
ACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE
ITS RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE TO
ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.
CASE NO. P AC-O5-
ORDER NO. 29878
Background
On January 15, 2005, PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp;
Company) filed an Application for authority to increase the Company s general rates for electric
servIce.
On June 13 , 2005, a Stipulation (and Proposed Settlement) was filed by PacifiCorp,
Commission Staff, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho, Agrium, Inc., J.R. Simplot and Timothy J. Shurtz. Monsanto Company, an
intervenor, did not sign the Stipulation, specifically objecting to Paragraph 9 of the Stipulation, a
provision that addresses the tariff versus contract standard as it pertains to special contract
customers and future service contracts.
On July 22, 2005, the Commission in final Order No. 29833 approved the Stipulation
and Settlement with the exception of Paragraph 9. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.276.
Petitions for Intervenor Funding
On July 28 and 29 2005, Petitions for Intervenor Funding in Case No. PAC-05-
were filed by the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. (Irrigators; lIP A) and Community
Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI). Reference Idaho Code 9 61-617A; IDAPA
31.01.01.161-165. The Irrigators request $38 197.40. CAPAI requests $6 157.47. The
Commission in this Order approves grants of intervenor funding for CAP AI in the amount of
157.47 and for the Irrigators in the amount of $21 780.03 pursuant to the Idaho Code and the
Commission s Rules of Procedure.
Idaho Code 9 61-617 A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure
provide the framework for awards of intervenor funding. Section 61-61 7 A( 1) declares that it is
the "policy of this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the
ORDER NO. 29878
Commission so that all affected customers receIve full and fair representation in those
proceedings.Accordingly, the Commission may order any regulated utility with intrastate
annual revenues exceeding $3 500 000 to pay all or a portion of the costs of one or more parties
for legal fees, witness fees and reproduction costs, not to exceed a total for all intervening parties
combined of $40 000.
Rule 162 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure provides the form and content
requirements of a petition for intervenor funding. The petition must contain: (1) an itemized list
of expenses broken down into categories; (2) a statement of the intervenor s proposed finding or
recommendation; (3) a statement showing that the cost the intervenor wishes to recover are
reasonable; (4) a statement explaining why the costs constitute a significant financial hardship
for the intervenor; (5) a statement showing how the intervenor s proposed finding or
recommendation differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff;
(6) a statement showing how the intervenor s recommendation or position addressed issues of
concern to the general body of utility users or customers; and (7) a statement showing the class
of customer on whose behalf the intervenor appeared.
The Petitions for Intervenor Funding of the Irrigators and CAP AI can be summarized
as follows:
Irrigators
The Petition of the Irrigators conforms with the requirements of RP 162.
Itemized List of Expenses
The summary of expenses that the Irrigators request to recover is as follows:
Legal Fees:
Eric L. Olsen: 70.9 hours at $175
Costs:
Long distance/postage
Travel:
Total Work and Costs:
Consultant Anthony J. Yankel
193 hours at $125 per hour
Expenses:
Travel, room and meals
Total Work and Costs:
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES
$13 860.
212.40
$14 072.40
$24 125.
$24 125.
$38 197.40
ORDER NO. 29878
A detailed log of hourly charges is included for legal expense. Exhibit A, Attachment 1. A
detailed log of consultant time is set out in Exhibit A, Attachment 2. Exhibit B is 30 pages of
prepared and unfiled testimony. The Irrigators contend that the expenses and costs are
reasonable in amounts and were necessarily incurred.
Statement of Proposed Findings
The Irrigators represent that their legal counsel and consultant fully participated in
the case, actively reviewing the filing, preparing and reviewing data requests and responses
drafting direct testimony and participating in settlement discussions. The Irrigators were parties
to the resulting Stipulation and filed comments in support. Because it was not known until late
in the process that any party would propose settlement, and even later before one was reached
the Irrigators contend that they still had to substantially prepare for the presentation of their
direct case before the Commission. The proposed findings or positions of the Irrigators are set
forth in the draft direct testimony of Mr. Anthony Yanke!. Reference Petition Exhibit B. The
Irrigators, independently but concurrently with Staff, determined that PacifiCorp had
inappropriately included the Monsanto special contract costs in this case, and the Irrigators
objection was noted in the Stipulation.
Statement of Financial Hardship
The Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. is an Idaho nonprofit corporation
qualified under IRC Section 501(c)(5) representing farm interests in electric utility rate matters
affecting farmers in southern and central Idaho. The Irrigators rely solely upon. dues and
contributions voluntarily paid by members, together with intervenor funding to support activities
and participate in rate cases. The executive director, Lynn Tomanaga, is the only part-time paid
employee, receiving a retainer plus expenses for office space, office equipment and secretarial
servIces. Officers and directors are elected annually and serve without compensation.
The Irrigators contend that the legal and consultant fees and costs incurred in this
case constitute a financial hardship to lIP A. The Irrigators currently have approximately
$12 392 in the bank. Accounts payable for legal and consultant fees and costs in this case total
$38 197.40, none of which have been paid.
Statement of Difference
In a rate case such as this that is settled before direct testimony has been filed or a
complete record otherwise established, Irrigators state that it may not be apparent how their
ORDER NO. 29878
positions would materially differ from the Commission Staff s position. However, as set forth in
Mr. Yankel's draft testimony, the Irrigators pointed out (1) that PacifiCorp was not including
known and measurable adjustments in its filing with respect to the actual irrigation curtailment
(2) that there were other ways of modeling how the curtailment credit can be derived based on
straight forward cost of service principles and how the credit should be treated on a system or
situs basis, (3) that there are problems with PacifiCorp s load research data from a quality
perspective and from taking into account the curtailment that the Irrigators are providing under
the load control program, and (4) that there were problems with allocation of costs associated
with PacifiCorp substations and primary distribution lines. Based on discussions with
Commission Staff, the Irrigators believe that these issues were not going to be directly addressed
by Staff in this case. Thus, the Irrigators believe that their positions and recommendations
materially differed from those on which they believe Staff was going to focus, notwithstanding
the fact that the vast majority of all parties' positions converged with the ultimate negotiation
and presentation of the Stipulation.
Statement of Recommendation
The Irrigators contend that their participation addressed issues of concern to the
general body of users or consumers on PacifiCorp s system. This case gave the Irrigators a
chance to analyze the effects of actual curtailment in the context of what it accomplished for the
jurisdiction as a whole and for the irrigators specifically. The curtailment of the irrigators
reduces the summer coincident peak for the system and the Idaho jurisdiction, as well as for the
irrigation class. A reduction of this summer peak, the Irrigators contend, not only benefits the
irrigators as a class by reducing its demand, but it also reduces the Idaho system demand and the
resulting system costs that are allocated to all PacifiCorp Idaho tariff customers. Continuation
and expansion of the irrigation load control program, they contend, may also defer the building
of additional generation plant as indicated in PacifiCorp s 2004 Integrated Resource Plan.
Avoiding these types of costs, they contend, is also a benefit to all of PacifiCorp s Idaho tariff
customers.
Statement Showing Class of Customer
The Irrigators contend that they represent the irrigation class of customers under
Schedule 10.
ORDER NO. 29878
CAP
The Petition of CAP AI conforms with the requirements of RP 162.
Itemized List of Expenses
A summary of expenses set forth in CAP AI Petition Exhibit A is as follows:
Costs:
Photocopies
Telephone conferencing costs
Postage
Total Costs
Legal Fees:
Brad M. Purdy: 50.70 hours at $120
Total Fees
TOTAL EXPENSES
$36.
21.63
15.
$73.47
084.
084.
157.47
Because of the speed at which this case was settled, CAP AI contends that its costs
are considerably less in this proceeding than in Idaho Power , A vista , and United Water
general rate cases. CAP AI did not retain an expert witness in this case, but relied upon the
expertise it has acquired in recent cases and, primarily, on its legal counsel for negotiation and
consultation purposes. CAP AI contends that the costs and fees incurred are reasonable.
Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed findings of CAP AI are set forth in the Settlement Agreement executed
by the parties to the proceeding and approved by the Commission. Though the Settlement was
executed prior to the filing of direct testimony, CAP AI, through extensive negotiations with
PacifiCorp, contends that it addressed issues of importance to the general body of PacifiCorp
ratepayers, including the Company s overall proposed rate increase and the impact it would have
on its low-income customers. PacifiCorp, CAPAI notes, did not propose changes to its Low
Income Weatherization program in its direct case. Because of its involvement in this case and
negotiations with Pacifi Corp, the Company agreed to implement CAP AI's proposed changes to
the Low Income Weatherization program as set forth in the Settlement. Were it not for the
involvement of and negotiations by CAP AI, it is contended that these changes would not have
been agreed to for consideration by the Commission.
ORDER NO. 29878
Statement of Financial Hardship
CAP AI states that it is a nonprofit 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 variety of different sources, including governmental. Many of the
funding sources, however, are unpredictable. Some contain conditions or limitations on the
scope and nature of work eligible for funding. The cost to CAP AI participating in this
proceeding, it contends, constitutes a significant financial hardship. Without a reasonable award
of costs, CAP AI contends that it would simply not be able to afford to participate and advance
the interest of not only low-income ratepayers, but all ratepayers.
Statement of Difference
No other intervenor in this proceeding, CAP AI contends, represented, exclusively,
the interests of the residential class, particularly the low-income sector of that class. CAP AI
contends that it raised issues, and represented the interests of the general body of PacifiCorp
ratepayers. F or example, it states that the Low Income Weatherization program for which
CAP AI seeks increased funding reduces the consumption of electricity during PacifiCorp
summer peak season helping to defer the acquisition of marginally-priced resources and provides
other system-wide benefits including the reduction of bad debt and arrearages.
CAP AI notes that Staff was not involved at all in the negotiations between CAP AI
and PacifiCorp. There was no deliberate design accounting for this, it states, other than the fact
that Staff has demonstrated a preference to allow CAP AI to make specific proposals and
advocate them on its own without intervention other than to opine, after the fact whether
CAP AI's position falls within a range of reasonableness. Thus, it is fair to say, CAP AI contends
that where CAP AI takes specific positions on issues that Staff does not address in detail, there
are significant differences between CAP AI and Staff for purposes of intervenor funding requests.
Statement of Recommendation
CAP AI states that its participation in this case addressed issues of concern to the
general body of ratepayers. The problems facing PacifiCorp s low-income customers, it states,
are societal problems that affect us all. Those problems, if not addressed, adversely affect all
utility ratepayers in the form of increased collection and associated costs as well as the write-off
of uncollectible accounts. These are costs, it states, that are passed on to all ratepayers. If low-
income customers are enabled to lower their electric bills through a Company-funded
ORDER NO. 29878
weatherization program, this decreases the likelihood that they will be unable to pay their bills
and, consequently, the Company avoids incurring the aforementioned costs.Furthermore
CAP AI contends that because the Low Income Weatherization program is a DSM program, it
represents a resource to the Company. It is in the best interests of PacifiCorp s ratepayers, it
states, for the Company to have a healthy diversity of resources.
CAP AI states that it participated in settlement negotiations only to the extent that its
participation was necessary to advance CAP AI's issues. CAP AI was informed that the
Commission would reschedule the original prefile and hearing dates and, ultimately, schedule the
hearing for the purpose of addressing the settlement. In order to minimize costs, and because it
intended to participate in the hearing and testify in support of the settlement, CAP AI did not
prefile any testimony regarding the settlement which it obviously supported as evidenced by its
execution of the document and which it would justify at hearing. It was only after the prefile
deadline for direct testimony was cancelled that CAP AI learned the Commission would not
conduct a hearing after all. CAP AI points this out simply to establish that it did everything in its
power to minimize costs, while leveraging its position in the interests of all ratepayers.
Consequently, though a hearing was never conducted CAP AI contends that its
participation in the case contributed materially toward shaping the scope and focus of the issues
and evidence presented to the Commission and, thus, the ultimate outcome of this proceeding by
offering a perspective not offered by any other party.
Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAP AI represented a specific PacifiCorp customer class, CAP
contends that it is the residential class.
Commission Findings
Submitted for Commission consideration are Petitions for Intervenor Funding filed
by the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association Inc. and Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho. Pursuant to Idaho Code 9 61-617 A(2) the Commission may order
PacifiCorp to pay all or a portion of the costs of one or more parties for legal fees, witness fees
and reproduction costs, not to exceed a total for all intervening parties combined of $40,000 in
any proceeding before the Commission. The combined total requested by the Irrigators and
CAPAI in this case is $44 354.87. We find that the Petitions for Intervenor Funding in this case
ORDER NO. 29878
were timely filed and satisfied all of the other "procedural" requirements set forth in Rules 161-
165 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure.
Idaho Code 9 61-617 A includes a statement of policy to encourage participation by
intervenors in Commission proceedings. The Commission determines an award for intervenor
funding based on the following considerations:
(a) A finding that the participation of the intervenor has materially
contributed to the decision rendered by the commission; and
(b) A finding that the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount and
would be a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; and
(c) The recommendation made by the intervenor differed materially from
the testimony and exhibits of the commission staff; and
(d) The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed issues of
concern to the general body of users or consumers.
We find that both Petitions satisfy the findings that we are required to make to justify an award.
Although the intervenor funding statute provides that intervenor funding may be
awarded up to a total of $40 000 in any particular case, we do not feel obligated to award the
entire amount. This particular case was resolved by way of settlement and not litigation.
find that both Petitioners satisfy the substantive requirements of Commission Rule of Procedure
165. We find it fair, just and reasonable to award the total request of CAPAI in the amount of
157.47 and find that the public interest is well served by such award. We find that CAPAI
was professional and economical in the marshalling of its time and efforts.
The Commission is uncomfortable with awarding the full amount requested by the
Irrigators in this case. While we appreciate the participation of the Irrigators in the case and
recognize their contribution to the ultimate resolution of issues, the fact remains that this rate
case was settled and not litigated. The draft testimony attached by Irrigators to their Petition for
Intervenor Funding was not part of the record we relied on in making our decision in this case.
The Irrigators have requested $38 197.40. The unallocated amount of intervenor funding
remaining is $33,842.53. Of this amount, we find it fair, just and reasonable to award the
Irrigators $21 780.03.
The Commission finds that the intervenor funding awards to CAP AI and the
Irrigators are fair and reasonable and will further the purpose of encouraging "participation at all
ORDER NO. 29878
stages of all proceedings before the Commission so that all affected customers receive full and
fair representation in those proceedings.Idaho Code 9 61-617 A( 1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over
PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company, an electric utility, pursuant to the jurisdiction
granted under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the Commission s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA
31.01.01.000 et seq.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho s Petition
for Intervenor Funding is granted in the amount of $6 157.47. Reference Idaho Code 9 61-617 A.
PacifiCorp is directed to pay said amount to CAP AI within 28 days from the date of this Order.
PacifiCorp shall include the cost of this award of intervenor funding to CAP AI as an expense to
be recovered in the Company s next general rate case proceeding from the residential customer
class.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Intervenor Funding filed by the
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. is partially granted in the amount of $21 780.03.
Reference Idaho Code 9 61-617 A. PacifiCorp is directed to pay said amount to the Irrigators
within 28 days from the date of this Order. PacifiCorp shall include the cost of this award of
intervenor funding to the Irrigators as an expense to be recovered in the Company s next general
rate case proceeding from the irrigation customer class.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order. Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration. See Idaho Code 9 61-626.
ORDER NO. 29878
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this jQ
day of September 2005.
OWL
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~ill
Je rl D. J well
Co'rhmission Secretary
bls/O:PAC-05-01 sw2
ORDER NO. 29878