20070208final_order_no_30239.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
February 8, 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
ACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER TO DETERMINE THE
APPROPRIATE FUNDING STRUCTURE OF
ITS SCHEDULE 21 (LOW INCOME
WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM)
ORDER NO. 30239
CASE NO. PAC-06-
On September 1 , 2006, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power filed a petition
seeking a declaratory order that the Company s current funding structure for its Low Income
Weatherization Program contained in tariff Schedule 21 is just and reasonable. On September
, 2006, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI) petitioned and was
granted intervenor status. Following a prehearing conference, the Commission issued Order No.
30169 setting this matter for hearing.
On January 10, 2007, the parties (Rocky Mountain, CAPAI and Commission Staff)
filed a Settlement Stipulation in this matter. The parties subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate
the Hearing and requested that the Commission decide the case based upon the Settlement
Stipulation and the testimony filed in support of the Stipulation. After reviewing the Stipulation
and the supporting testimony, the Commission approves the settlement and proposed changes to
Schedule 21.
BACKGROUND
A. The Petition
The historical background of this case is set out in Order No. 30139. Briefly, Rocky
Mountain has weatherized more than 600 homes since 1988 under its Low Income
Weatherization Program set out in tariff Schedule 21. The Company s Weatherization Program
is intended to increase conservation thereby reducing electricity consumption in the homes of
low-income residential customers. Rocky Mountain s Weatherization Program is administered
by two community action agencies located in Idaho Falls and Pocatello. The weatherization
services are provided at no charge to eligible households.
As explained in its Petition, Rocky Mountain s total funding for its Weatherization
Program in Schedule 21 is capped at $150 000 per year. Rocky Mountain currently reimburses
ORDER NO. 30239
its partner agencIes 50% of the cost of installing approved weatherization measures when
matching federal grants are available to agencies. If government funds have been exhausted
Rocky Mountain reimbursed its partner agencies up to 100% of the cost of installing
weatherization measures. The previous $1 500 "cap" on its average investment per household
was removed effective August 1 , 2006. The Company will continue to reimburse the partner
agencies 15% of the Company s rebates to cover the agencies' administrative costs.
B. Procedural History
On October 3, 2006, the Commission issued its Notice of Petition regarding the
Company s request for a declaratory order. The Commission s Notice also required that
petitions to intervene be filed no later than October 24, 2006. CAP AI was the only person to
intervene and its intervention was granted in Order No. 30139. On October 24 2006, the parties
convened a telephonic prehearing conference. The parties agreed on a proposed discovery
schedule and proposed convening a technical hearing on February 2 2007. Id.
On January 10 , 2007, the parties filed a settlement Stipulation resolving all disputed
issues in this matter. 1 The Staff and Rocky Mountain subsequently filed testimony in support of
the Stipulation.
On January 25 , 2007 , the Staff filed a motion on behalf of the parties to vacate the
hearing scheduled for February 2 , 2007. Given the settlement Stipulation and the supporting
prefiled testimony, the parties recommended that the Commission vacate the evidentiary hearing
and decide the case based upon the Stipulation and the supporting testimony. Motion at 1. The
parties asserted there is a sufficient record to decide this matter without a hearing. Moreover
vacating the hearing will conserve time and resources, and is in the public interest. Id. At its
public decision meeting on January 30, 2007, the Commission granted the Motion to Vacate and
took the case under advisement.
THE STIPULATION
A. The Settlement
The parties agreed that Rocky Mountain shall amend its tariff Schedule 21 to expand
the scope of allowed weatherization measures. Allowed conservation measures will include all
cost-effective measures approved by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with a "savings to
I CAPAI's counsel was unable to sign the settlement Stipulation until January 22 , 2007.
ORDER NO. 30239
investment ratio" (SIR) greater or equal to 1.0 for electrically heated homes. Stipulation at ~
The parties also agreed to increase Rocky Mountain s weatherization sharing percentage from
50% to 75% of the total cost of the approved weatherization measures. Id. at ~ 6.
The Stipulation also provides that CAP AI will not intervene or otherwise participate
III any future proceeding to modify Schedule 21 or other Rocky Mountain weatherization
programs from April 1 , 2007 to March 31 , 2009. Id. at ~ 7. F or its part, Rocky Mountain will
conduct a study to determine the cost-effectiveness of its Weatherization Program after March
, 2009. Rocky Mountain proposed to submit the results of this study to the Commission. The
Stipulation notes that performance of the study should not be interpreted as CAP AI's acceptance
of the validity or applicability of any cost-effectiveness study. Id. at ~ 9. Rocky Mountain
overall annual spending amount for Schedule 21 will remain unchanged at $150 000.
The parties recognize that the Stipulation represented a compromise of the positions
of the parties. The parties urge the Commission to adopt the Stipulation and find that its terms
and the proposed changes to Schedule 21 are fair, just and reasonable. They also assert that the
settlement is in the public interest. Id. at ~ 13. The parties recommend that the proposed
changes to Schedule 21 become effective April 1 , 2007.
B. Supporting Testimony
The Stipulation was supported by testimony from Staff and Rocky Mountain. Staff
witness Wayne Hart asserted that Staffs goal in this case was to align Rocky Mountain
Weatherization Program closer to the programs offered by the other two electric utilities and to
expand the range of allowed weatherization measures. Tr. at 3-4. He explained that Rocky
Mountain s existing Weatherization Program did not include all eligible conservation measures
approved by DOE. Although the type of conservation measures will be expanded to include
repairs and replacements, most of the new weatherization measures will also be subject to the
cost effectiveness test (SIR) built into the program. Consequently, the improvements to each
home must still be cost-effective.
Rocky Mountain s witness Brian Dickman also supported the Stipulation. He noted
that the proposed changes to tariff Schedule 21 "are intended to increase flexibility for
administering agencies and to allow for additional measures to be installed for low-income
customers of Rocky Mountain Power.Tr. at 3. He urged the Commission to adopt the
Stipulation in its entirety and approve the proposed tariffs effective April 1 , 2007. Id.
ORDER NO. 30239
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
After reviewing the Stipulation, the proposed changes to tariff Schedule 21 and the
supporting prefiled testimony, we approve the settlement Stipulation. Expanding the scope of
DOE-approved weatherization measures will improve the overall effectiveness of Rocky
Mountain s Weatherization Program for its low-income customers. Increasing the sharing
percentage from 50% to 75% will increase the conservation measures provided to the electrically
heated homes. We commend the parties for their time and efforts in resolving this case. The
Stipulation represents positive changes to the Company s Low Income Weatherization Program.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties ' Joint Motion to Vacate the Hearing and
Decide the Matter on the Record is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' settlement Stipulation is approved and
adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed changes to tariff Schedule 21 are
approved. The changes will become effective on April 1 , 2007.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. P AC-06-
10 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30239
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
q #'
day of February 2007.
~ITH~~NER
ENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:PAC-06-10 dh4
ORDER NO. 30239