20071228final_order_no_30482.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 28, 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF P ACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO
ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
CASE NO. P AC-07-
ORDER NO. 30482
The Commission in this Order approves a Stipulation offered as a proposed
settlement of the rate issues in Case No. P AC-07-05. Parties to the Stipulation are PacifiCorp
dba Rocky Mountain Power (RMP; Company); the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
(Irrigators); Monsanto Company; Agrium, Inc.; the Community Action Partnership Association
of Idaho (CAP AI); Timothy J. Shurtz; and Commission Staff. The Commission finds the
settlement to be fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest. The rate changes we
authorize for an effective date of January 2008 increase revenues from electric service by
$11.5 million annually or 6.4%. The increase in base rates will vary by class of customer. The
base rates for residential and irrigation customers will increase by 4.89%. The base rates for
general service customers (Schedules 6, 6A, 23 and 23A) will not change. The Commission in
this Order also approves the November 5, 2007 Electric Service Agreement (Agreement)
between PacifiCorp and Monsanto Company and approves grants of intervenor funding for
CAP AI and for the Irrigators.
Initial Application
On June 8 , 2007, Rocky Mountain Power filed an Application with the Commission
for authority to increase the Company s revenues from electric service by $18.5 million
annually, or 10.3%. The net increases recommended by the Company in its Application range
from 24.1 % for Monsanto Company to 20.7% for public street lighting to 14.5% for Agrium and
to 6.7% for residential service customers and irrigators.
The Company s rate spread and rate design proposals are based on a submitted class
cost of service study and include a proposal that, in time of rising costs, no individual customer
class would receive a rate reduction. The increase in base rates would vary by class of customer.
ORDER NO. 30482
Rocky Mountain Power provides electric service to more than 67 000 customers in
eastern Idaho. As reflected in accompanying testimony, RMP's need for the revenue increase
requested is primarily caused by cost increases in the following areas:
1. Fuel, wholesale market and transmission wheeling price increases, which
contribute to significant increases in net power costs.
2. New generation, transmission and distribution plant investments.
3. Labor-related cost increases.
The Company contends that all elements of its proposed rate increase are necessary to maintain
and provide adequate, efficient, safe and reliable electric service to its customers and to provide a
reasonable opportunity for the Company to earn a fair return on its investments. The Company
claims it is currently earning a return on equity (ROE) of 5.3% in its Idaho jurisdiction. The
requested increase in rates would allow the Company to earn an ROE of 10.75%. The Company
contends that the higher ROE is warranted to attract capital necessary to maintain its utility
infrastructure.
In addition to the revenue increase requested, the Company also proposed operational
changes to its electric service regulations:
Regulation No.1 0 - proposing payment of collection agency cost be the
responsibility of the customer causing such a charge to be incurred.
Schedule 300 - increase in fees associated with the connection and
reconnection of service and changing the hours during which connection
and reconnection of service is offered after normal office hours.
Regulation No. 12 - housekeeping, clarification, and changes in the
methodology of refunding customer advances for line extension.
As reflected in the Company s Application, the increase requested was $3.6 million
less than the increase otherwise supported by the Company s revenue requirement analysis, but
was limited due to the Revised Protocol rate mitigation cap. The Schedule 94 Rate Mitigation
Adjustment (RMA) was designed to modify rates and revenue generated from various customer
classes to more closely match revenues with class cost of service. The Revised Protocol is the
allocation method utilized to allocate and assign generation, transmission and distribution costs
to PacifiCorp six retail state jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional Cost Allocation), Order No. 29708.
Reference Case No. P AC-02-(Inter-
ORDER NO. 30482
The revised tariff schedules proposed by the Company reflect a proposed effective
date of January 1 , 2008.
Parties of Record
On June 29, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Intervention
Deadline. See Order No. 30356. Parties requesting and granted intervention were: Monsanto
Company; Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.; Agrium, Inc.; Community Action
Partnership Association of Idaho; and Timothy 1. Shurtz.
Public Workshops/Hearings
Public workshops for RMP customers were held on September 4 in Rexburg, Idaho
and September 5 in Soda Springs, Idaho. At the workshops customers were provided with an
opportunity to hear from Commission Staff regarding the Company s Application and ask
questions of Staff and representatives of the Company.
Public hearings were held on October 30 in Rigby and November 1 in Grace, Idaho
for the purpose of receiving public comments. A transcript of proceedings has been filed with
the Commission.
Settlement Stipulation
A technical hearing in Case No. PAC-07-05 was scheduled for November 6, 2007
in Boise, Idaho. At the commencement of proceedings the parties presented for Commission
consideration a Stipulation (and proposed settlement).
The following parties appeared by and through their respective counsel:
PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power Justin Lee Brown
Commission Staff Scott D. Woodbury
Neil Price
Monsanto Company Randall C. Budge
Agrium, Inc.Conley Ward
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.Eric L. Olsen
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho Brad M. Purdy
Not appearing, although a party of record and signator to the settlement stipulation, was Timothy
Shurtz.
ORDER NO. 30482
The Stipulation presented for Commission consideration is signed by all parties of
record and is an all encompassing resolution of the issues presented in RMP's rate case.
Accompanying the Stipulation is a proposed November 5 , 2007 Electric Service Agreement
(2008 Agreement) between PacifiCorp and Monsanto Company. Testimony supporting the
Stipulation and proposed settlement was presented on November 6 by RMP witness Brian
Dickman, Manager of Regulatory Affairs for the Company s Idaho jurisdiction and Commission
Staff witness Randy Lobb, Administrator of the Utilities Division.
The Stipulation and proposed settlement include the following elements:
Revenue Requirement, Stipulation ~~ 5-
Overall increase in base rates for electric service of $11.5 million or
6.4%.
Authorized rate of return 8.27%
Capital structure consisting of 50.4% common stock equity, 49.1 %
long-term debt, and 0.5% preferred stock
Authorized return on equity 10.25%; recognized cost of debt 6.26%.
. RMP should receive recovery of previously deferred costs and should
return previously deferred credits as proposed in this case, to the
extent that Staff did not challenge such recovery in its direct
testimony.
Specifically, these deferred items include:
a. Grid West loan as approved in Order No. 30156. These costs will
continue to be amortized as ordered;
b. MEHC Commitments 127 and 131 (West Valley lease and A&G
credit) as approved in Order No. 30076. Amortization of the deferred
benefits will begin January 1 , 2008 on the Company s accounting
records. All financial benefits as described in Commitments 126
through 131 are deemed to be reflected in the Company s rates
effective January 1 , 2008, and will be reaffirmed in subsequent rate
cases through the expiration of each commitment;
c. MEHC transition severance expense as approved in Order No. 30225.
Severance expense deferred will equal $31 169 477 as proposed by
Staff witness Joe Leckie. Amortization of the deferred costs will
begin January 1 2008; and
ORDER NO. 30482
d. Powerdale hydro facility accounting as approved in Order No. 30344
and as included in this case.
The Stipulation does not alter or impair the recovery of regulatory
assets previously deferred by the Commission Orders under F AS 71.
Cost of Service, Rate Spread and Rate Design, Stipulation ~~ 9-
The parties in Stipulation ~ 9 agree to the following rate spread.
Idaho Rate Spread -- $11.50M Increase
COS Rate Spread
Schedule Description Percent Dollar Percent Dollar
(000)(000)
Residential 50%632 89%$1,450
Residential TOD 06%$867 89%045
Irrigation 80%679 89%928
717A/ll/12 Street & Area Lighting 74.67%$255 75.29%$257
Contract 1 Agrium 11.98%$479 25%$250
Contract 2 Monsanto 16.47%014 13.50%570
6/8/9/19/23/35 General Service ($2,424)00%
Total 6.43%$11 ,504 6.42%$11 500
With respect to the rate plans for 2008 through 2010 for Agrium and
Monsanto, the Company agrees that in any rate filing during the
terms of such rate plans it will not seek to recover any revenue
shortfalls related to Agrium and Monsanto from other Idaho
customers when compared to cost of service studies in those filings.
The cost of service methodology proposed by the Company in this
proceeding will remain in effect as the accepted methodology through
the maximum duration of the rate plans for Agrium and Monsanto
which expire December 31 , 2010.
Irrigation Customer Issues, Stipulation ~~ 12-
For inter-jurisdictional cost allocation purposes, the parties agree that
the Company Irrigation Load Control Program shall be situs-
assigned in this case. RMP will directly assign to Idaho both the cost
responsibility for the incentive payments and the reduction in loads
associated with the program.
. RMP and lIP A agree that irrigation class revenues shall increase by
89% effective January 1 , 2008.
ORDER NO. 30482
. RMP and lIP A agree that, for the 2008 and 2009 irrigation seasons
the load control credit for the Scheduled Irrigation Load Control
Program will remain at the current level of $11.19 /k W -year and there
will be no change to the current tariff or operational characteristics of
the program.
. RMP and lIP A agree that for the 2008 and 2009 irrigation seasons
the load control credit for the Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control
Program shall be increased from the current level of $11.19/k W -year
to $23.00/kW-year subject to further increase to up to $28.00/kW-
year, according to the total amount of participation in the Irrigation
Load Control Program, both Scheduled and Dispatchable, during
2008 and 2009. irrigation seasons. Participation levels in the
Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Program are subject to
validation through load history data. Existence of load at the
requested site must be demonstrated for a period of two years prior to
being eligible to participate in the program. The escalation of the
credit is designed to increase participation.
MW Participation Level
Minimum Maximum Credit
$kW-year
149 $23.
150 174 $26.
175 No Limit $28.
. RMP and lIP A agree that participants in the Dispatchable Irrigation
Load Control Program may "opt-out" of up to five dispatch events in
one irrigation season. Further opt-outs are not permitted and shall
result in early termination under the terms of Special Condition-Early
Termination, and removal from the program for the remainder of the
irrigation season.
Permissible opt-outs will reduce the participant's load control credit
by the $/MWh the Company pays for power at the time of the
dispatch event. Such $/MWh prices will be provided by the
Company s commercial and trading organization and will be based
on the established Four Corners and Palo Verde trading hubs and the
prices actually paid by the Company. Opt-outs will be computed at
the conclusion of the irrigation season and will be included as a
reduction to the participant's load control credit issued on the
participant's October check.
. By December 7, 2007, RMP will provide lIP A with documentation of
the valuation methodology it proposes to use to value the
Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Program. If a party disputes
ORDER NO. 30482
any aspect of the methodology, PacifiCorp and lIP A will file a
request with the Commission to resolve the dispute.
The Company will use the methodology to potentially adjust the load
control credit for the Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Program
for the 2008 and 2009 irrigation season at participation levels of 175
MW or greater and to assign a value for the load control credit for the
Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Program after the 2009
irrigation season.
. RMP and lIP A agree that the agreed-upon load control credit of
$28/kW-year for the Dispatchable Irrigation Load Control Program
for participation levels of 175 MW or greater is subject to adjustment
for the 2008 and 2009 irrigation seasons based upon the results of the
Company s valuation methodology that will be provided to lIP A no
later than December 7, 2007. The adjustment shall be to the final
price suggested by the Company s methodology and either agreed to
by lIP A or determined by Commission Order, unless the final price is
greater than either $2 above or below $28/kW-year, then the
adjustment shall be limited to a total $2 adjustment.
. RMP and lIP A agree that the Company will work in good faith to
meet all installation requests, but cannot guarantee that it can respond
to all installation requests received.
Consumer Related Issues, Stipulation ~ 23
The Parties agree to defer consideration of the consumer related
changes proposed in this case (recovery of collection agency costs
fees for reconnection of service, and line extension changes).
Agrium, Stipulation ~~ 24-
. RMP and Agrium agree that Agrium s tariff contract revenues under
Schedule 401 will increase 6.25% effective January 1 , 2008. Rates
for service to Agrium or to any other customers served under
Schedule 9 will not change on January 1 2008.
. --
. RMP and Agrium further agree that Agrium s tariff rates will be
increased 3% effective January 1 2009 and 7% effective January 1
2010. The price changes specified herein shall be applied as a
uniform percentage increase to the customer charge, the demand
charge, and the HLH and LLH Energy Charges in Schedule 401.
. RMP commits to make no further adjustments to Agrium s tariff rates
prior to January 1 2011.
ORDER NO. 30482
Monsanto Tariff Contract and Curtailment Value, Stipulation ~~ 27-
PacifiCorp and Monsanto agree that the existing Electric Service
Agreement (Monsanto ESA) and tariff schedule that became effective
January 1 , 2007 shall remain in full force and effect according to its
terms until December 31 , 2007. The new Monsanto ESA, dated
November 5, 2007, is for an initial three-year term beginning January
, 2008. (A copy of the Monsanto ESA, parts of which are provided
under confidential seal , accompanies the Stipulation.
PacifiCorp and Monsanto agree that Monsanto s total firm revenues
shall be increased by 13.5% effective January 1 , 2008, and that both
Monsanto s firm rates and curtailment credit rates shall be increased
3% effective January 1 2009 and 5% effective January 1 2010. The
price changes specified shall be applied as a uniform percentage
increase to the firm energy charge, the customer charge, the firm
demand charge, and the interruptible power energy charge in
Schedule 400.
PacifiCorp and Monsanto have agreed to changes and clarifications to
Monsanto s curtailment product as follows: (a) the number of
economic curtailment hours shall be increased from 800 in 2008 to
830 for 2009 only, and to 850 for 2010 only; (b) operating reserve
interruptions shall last up to two hours each and shall end at the top of
the second hour following the reserve event; and (c) each hour or
portion of an hour counts as a full hour, so that an interruption of one
hour and 15 minutes shall count as 2 hours against the current 188
hour limitation on interruptions.
PacifiCorp commits to make no further adjustments to Monsanto
firm revenues and curtailment credit rates prior to January 1 , 2011.
Monsanto commits not to seek further increases in its curtailment
credit rates prior to January 1 2011.
The curtailment valuation for Monsanto is based on a "black box
determination with no party accepting a specific methodology for
setting this valuation.
The Stipulation represents a compromise of the positions of the parties on all issues
in this proceeding. Stipulation ~ 33. All parties agree that the Stipulation is in the public interest
and that all of its terms and conditions are fair, just and reasonable. Stipulation ~ 36.
ORDER NO. 30482
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed the filings of record in Case No. PAC-07-
including the Stipulation of parties (and proposed settlement) and the November 5 , 2007 Electric
Service Agreement between PacifiCorp and Monsanto Company. The supporting context for the
Commission deliberation regarding the reasonableness of the Stipulation terms is the
Commission s November 6, 2007 record of hearing in this case, which includes by reference all
prefiled direct and rebuttal testimony. Commission Rules of Procedure 282, 283; Tr. p. 41. The
Commission is also informed by the transcripts of Rigby and Grace, Idaho proceedings where
customers and other parties of interest were provided the opportunity to raise their concerns and
give testimony, and by filed public comments.
Settlements are reviewed under Commission Rules of Procedure 274-276.
incorporate by reference the submitted Stipulation (and proposed settlement) as if set forth herein
in its entirety.
As stated in Rule 276
The Commission is not bound by settlements. It will independently review
any settlement proposed to it to determine whether the settlement is just, fair
and reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or
regulatory policy. When a settlement is presented for decision, the
Commission may accept the settlement, reject the settlement, or state
additional conditions under which the settlement will be accepted.
...
Under Rule 275, proponents of a proposed settlement carry the burden of showing
that the settlement is reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or
regulatory policy.
As reflected in the November 6, 2007, transcript of proceedings, the Company in this
case initially requested an overall increase in its revenues of $18.4 7 million or 10.3%. Tr. p. 11;
Stipulation ~ 2. That request was reduced in Company rebuttal testimony to $15.4 million or
6%. Tr. p. 12; Stipulation ~ 3. The increase amount agreed to by the parties in the Stipulation
(except Monsanto which explicitly does not object) is $11.5 million or 6.4%. Tr. p. 13;
Stipulation ~ 5.
The parties (also with the exception of Monsanto which explicitly does not object)
agree that the cost of capital shall be determined using a capital structure consisting of 50.4%
common stock equity, 49.1 % long-term debt and 0.5% preferred stock. RMP's authorized return
ORDER NO; 30482
on equity shall be 10.25%; the Company s cost of debt is recognized to be 6.26%. These
components produce an authorized rate of return of 8.27%. Stipulation ~
The cost of service methodology proposed by the Company in this proceeding will
remain in effect as the accepted methodology through the maximum duration of the rate plans
for Agrium and Monsanto, which expire December 31 , 2010. Stipulation ~ 11. The Company
agrees that in any rate filing during the terms of such rate plans that it will not seek to recover
any revenue shortfalls related to Agrium and Monsanto from other Idaho customers when
compared to cost of service studies in those filings. Stipulation ~ 10.
The Commission finds the Stipulation and negotiated settlement submitted in this
case to be fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest. As represented, we find that the
settlement is a compromise by all parties. We find the $11.5 million 6.4% increase to be
reasonable, as is spreading the increase to customer classes in the manner set forth in the above
schedule. The resultant average changes in electric rates for the Company s customer service
schedules that we find reasonable to approve are set forth in Stipulation Exhibit 2 and are
depicted in Attachment A to this Order.
Increase in Rates for Street Lighting Classes
The Commission in its public hearings in eastern Idaho heard from many
municipalities regarding the percentage increase proposed for street and area lighting. In RMP'
general rate case filing, the Company requested a 20.7% rate increase for public street lighting
classes. This is far below what the cost of service model calculated as the cost of providing these
services. Once Commission Staffs adjustments were made, the cost of service model showed an
80.7% shortfall from these classes. Staff proposed moving the four street lighting classes (7, 7A
, 12) to full cost of service rather than a partial increase. The Company agreed in the
Stipulation. The Street and Area Lighting annual revenue requirement difference between the
Company s original request of$393 300 and Staffs proposal of$587 500 is $194 200.
According to Company witness Griffith's Exhibit 35, the average number
customers for the four public street lighting classes in question is 258 for Schedule 7, 194 for
Schedule 7 A, 29 for Schedule 11 , and 290 for Schedule 12. Moving these customers to full cost
of serVice results in a yearly per customer average of $428.82 for the average Schedule 7
customer, $262.02 for the average Schedule 7 A customer, $1 907.48 for the average Schedule
ORDER NO. 30482
customer, and $1 278.55 for the average Schedule 12 customer. The Commission does not find
these amounts to be unduly burdensome or onerous.
Cost of service results have historically fluctuated for the street lighting classes, more
so than the larger customer classes. This is the first proposed revenue increase for street lighting
classes in many years. We find that moving the street lighting classes to full cost of service is
justified on equity principles. Should the increase not be borne by these particular classes, the
revenue shortfall would be shifted to those classes already receiving a rate increase. The
Commission finds that all customers are better served by aligning costs with revenues. For street
lighting customers, it is a large percentage increase, but the related dollar amount, we find, is not
likely to impose undue economic hardship.
Monsanto Electric Service Agreement
The November 5, 2007, Electric Service Agreement between PacifiCorp and
Monsanto (2008 Agreement) replaces and supersedes a May 18 , 2006, Agreement (2007
Agreement) approved by the Commission in Order No. 30197, Case No. PAC-06-09. The
form of the new Service Agreement remains the same. The 2008 Agreement sets the terms of
electrical service provided by the Company and the interruptible (operating reserve, economic
curtailment and system integrity) products offered by Monsanto. The changes to the 2007
Agreement are identified in the Settlement Stipulation. The parts redacted have been provided
under separate seal and have been reviewed by the Commission. Monsanto claims as
confidential information the following: (a) the interruptible credit in dollars per kW
interruptible power set forth in paragraph 4.1.2 of the 2008 Electric Service Agreement and tariff
Schedule 400; and (b) the furnace sizes available for operating reserve, system integrity and
economic curtailment interruptions set forth in 2008 Electric Service Agreement Exhibits A and
B. The Commission has reviewed the accompanying affidavit and certificate of Monsanto
attorney and accepts Monsanto s representation that the net cost of electricity after the
interruptible credit and furnace size in MW available for interruption are trade secret information
entitled to protection from disclosure under Idaho Code ~ 48-801(5). The remaining terms of the
Electric Service Agreement are not considered to be trade secrets or confidential information and
are available for public review.
Monsanto operates an elemental phosphorous plant near the City of Soda Springs in
Caribou County, Idaho. Rates for service under the 2007 Agreement are fixed through year-end
ORDER NO. 30482
2007. Monsanto is PacifiCorp s largest single-point customer with three electric furnaces and a
firm electric load of approximately 182 MW. On average, Monsanto consumes approximately
1.4 million MWh of electricity, roughly 42% of PacifiCorp s Idaho jurisdictional load.
Monsanto contends that electricity is the largest single cost of producing phosphorous at its Soda
Springs plant and represents approximately one-third of its total production costs. Affordable
electricity at a price that is relatively stable and reliable is important to Monsanto. The
Commission finds that the interruptible products offered by Monsanto provide it with a means of
controlling its net energy price.
Monsanto operates its electric furnaces 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year, excepting maintenance and repair. Monsanto is an interruptible customer that can provide
PacifiCorp with up to 162 MW of curtailments. Its three furnaces can be interrupted separately
as well as collectively in any combination. Interruptions can occur within seconds to meet
system emergencies and provide operating reserves. Two hours notice is required to interrupt
for economic reasons. The interruptible products, we find, provide operational benefits to
PacifiCorp. We find the products to be priced at a level commensurate with the value they
represent today. The Commission finds it reasonable to approve the submitted 2008 Agreement
governing electric service to Monsanto for an effective date of January 1 , 2008.
Intervenor Funding
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A and Commission
Rules of Procedure 161 through 165. Section 61-617 A(1) declares that it is the "policy of this
state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before this Commission so that all
affected customers receive full and fair representation in those proceedings." The statutory cap
for intervenor funding that can be awarded in anyone case is $40 000. Idaho Code ~ 61-
617 A(2). Accordingly, the Commission may order any regulated utility with intrastate annual
revenues exceeding $3.5 million 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.
Petitions for Intervenor Funding were filed by Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho ($13 160.04), the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association ($66 027.12), and
Timothy Shurtz ($12 019.92).
ORDER NO. 30482
Rule 162 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure provides the form and content
requirements for 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 costs 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 filings of petitioners comport with the
form required by the Commission Rules.
Commission Findings
Submitted for Commission consideration are Petitions for Intervenor Funding filed
by the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association, and Timothy Shurtz. The Commission has reviewed the Petitions, the prefiled
testimony of the Petitioners and the prefiled testimony of Commission Staff.
Pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A(2) the Commission may order Pacifi Corp 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, CAP AI and Timothy
Shurtz is $91 207.18. We find that the Petitions for Intervenor Funding in this case were timely
filed and satisfied all of the other "procedural" or technical requirements set forth in Rules 161-
165 of the Commission Rules of Procedure.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A includes a statement of policy to encourage participation by
intervenors in Commission findings. The Commission determines an award for intervenor
funding based on the following considerations:
(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
ORDER NO. 30482
(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.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A. We find that only the Petitions of CAP AI and the Irrigators satisfy the
substantive findings that we are required to make to justify an award. IDAP
31.01.01.165.01.a-e. We find that the participation and presentations of each, as reflected in
their respective pre filed testimonies and the Stipulation, materially contributed to the
Commission s decision. Both add informed perspectives to the hearing record. We find that the
recommendations of each differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of Commission
Staff and provided measurable form and substance to the Settlement Stipulation.
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.
CAP AI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies that assist with issues related
to the causes and conditions of poverty in Idaho. In this case CAP AI addressed the Company
proposal to recover collection costs from customers as a condition of reconnection. We find it
fair, just and reasonable to award the total request of CAP AI in the amount of $13,160.04 and
find that the public interest is well served by such award. We find the itemized costs of CAP
to be reasonable and recognize that the cost to CAP AI of participating in this proceeding
constitutes a significant financial hardship. We find that CAP AI 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. The Irrigators are a non-profit corporation representing farm interests in
southern and central Idaho. The Irrigators rely solely upon dues and contributions voluntarily
paid by members based on acres irrigated or horsepower per pump. The Irrigators report that
member contributions have been falling and that the organization currently has only
approximately $16 000 in the bank. 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. While we do not challenge any particular itemized
expense, the Irrigators have requested $66 027.12. The unallocated amount of intervenor
ORDER NO. 30482
funding remaining is $26 839.96. Of this amount, we find it fair, just and reasonable to award
the Irrigators $22 000.
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
stages of all proceedings before the Commission so that all affected customers receive full and
fair representation in those proceedings.Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A( 1).
While this Commission is reluctant to deny Petitions for Intervenor Status, we find
that Mr. Shurtz s participation did not result in evidence or input qualitatively different from the
comments received by the Commission from customers and interested parties in the public
hearings we held in eastern Idaho or in the written comments of customers filed with the
Commission. Based on our review of the record in this case, the Commission finds that Mr.
Shurtz has failed to demonstrate entitlement to an award of intervenor funding. Specifically, we
find that his participation did not materially contribute to our decision and that his
recommendations on matters deemed of relative importance and significance to this Commission
did not materially differ from the prefiled testimony and exhibits of Commission Staff.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power, an electric utility, and the issues presented in this case, pursuant to the powers
granted it under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and pursuant to the Commission s Rules of
Procedure, IDAP A 31.01.01.000 et seq.including specifically Rules 272 through 280 as pertains
to settlements.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission hereby accepts the Stipulation and proposed
settlement tendered in Case No. PAC-07-05 approving an $11.5 million increase in base rates
representing an aggregate base rate increase of 6.4% for an effective date of January 1 , 2008.
The Company is directed to file amended tariffs comporting with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission does hereby approve the
November 5 , 2007 Electric Service Agreement between PacifiCorp and Monsanto Company.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Community Action Partnership Association of
Idaho s Petition for Intervenor Funding is granted in the amount of $13 160.04. Reference Idaho
ORDER NO. 30482
Code ~ 61-617 A. PacifiCorp is directed to pay said amount to CAP AI within 28 days from the
date of this Order. IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02. PacifiCorp shall include the cost of this award of
intervenor funding to CAPAI as an expense to be recovered in the Company s next general rate
case proceeding from the residential customer class. Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Petition for Intervenor funding filed by the
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. is partially granted in the amount of $22 000.
Reference Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A. PacifiCorp is directed to pay said amount to the Irrigators
within 28 days from the date of this Order. IDAPA 31.01.01.1~5.02. 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. Idaho Code
61-617 A(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Commission hereby denies the Petition for
Intervenor Funding filed by Mr. Timothy Shurtz.
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 ~ 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30482
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities- Commission at Boise, Idaho this
;;
7#.
day of December 2007.
~6VMACK A. REDFORD, PRESIDENT
6WL.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
bls/O:PAC-07-05 sw3
ORDER NO. 30482
Average Stipulated Retail Rates For Idaho Customers of
PacifiCorp
Present Present Proposed
Description Sch.(~)/kWh I (~)/kWh 2
Residential Sales
Residential Service
Residential Optional TaD
Total Residential
Commercial & Industrial
General Service - Large Power
General Svc. - Lg. Power (R&F)
General Service - Med. Voltage
General Service - High Voltage
Irrigation
Comm. & Ind. Space Heating
General Service
General Service (R&F)23A 8.45
General Service Optional TaD
Special Contract-Schedule 400 3.49
Special Contract- Schedule 401
Total Commercial & Industrial
Public Street LiI!htin
Security Area Lighting N/A N/A
Security Area Lighting (R&F)N/A N/A
Street Lighting - Company N/A N/A
Street Lighting - Customer N/A N/A
Total Public Street Lighting N/A N/A
Total Sales to Ultimate Customers
Notes:
I: Includes Schedule 94-RMA revenues. Excludes Schedule 34-BPA credit.
2: Excludes Schedule 34-BPA credit.
3: Charges are per lamp or luminaire, no energy rate.
ATTACHMENT A
CASE NO. PAC-E-07-
ORDER NO. 30482