20090416final_order_no_30783.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
April 16 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO
ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
CASE NO. PAC-08-
ORDER NO. 30783
The Commission in this Order approves a Stipulation offered as a proposed
settlement of the rate issues in Case No. PAC-08-07. Parties to the Stipulation are PacifiCorp
dba Rocky Mountain Power (RMP; Company); the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
(Irrigators; lIP A); the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI); 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 April 18, 2009, increase
authorized annual base tariff revenue for electric service from non-contract customers of RMP
by $4.38 million or 3.1 %. The net amount of actual increase will vary by class of customer and .
usage. An average electric residential customer (Schedule 1) using 850 kWh of electricity per
month will see a $3.07 per month increase in summer bills and a $2.38 per month increase in
winter bills. The Stipulation does not impact or propose any changes to the rates of Monsanto or
Agrium, whose rates are controlled by a separate agreement approved in 2007. The rates of
Monsanto and Agrium increased 3% on January 1 2009, and will increase again 5% on January
2010.
In this Order, the Commission also authorizes development and funding of an energy
conservation education program targeted to low-income customers and acknowledges the
Company s commitment to include an inverted rate design proposal for residential customers in
its next general rate case. An intervenor funding grant of $4 500 is approved for the Community
Action Partnership Association of Idaho and a grant of $18 003 is approved for the Idaho
Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
Initial Application
On September 19, 2008, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (Rocky Mountain
Power; Company) filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) for authority to increase the Company s base rates for electric service by $5.
ORDER NO. 30783
million annually, or 4.0%. The Company s requested rate increase is driven by two key factors:
(1) an unprecedented, and necessary capital investment cycle; and (2) rising costs of fuel and
purchased power to serve customers. Tr. p. 30. The increase in base rates would vary by class
of customer and actual usage.
Rocky Mountain Power claims that it is currently earning a normalized return on
equity (ROE) of 6.5% in its Idaho jurisdiction. This current ROE, it states, is far below the
Company s authorized Idaho return (10.25%), the returns recently authorized for other Idaho
investor-owned utilities, and the 10.75% ROE requested by the Company in this case. The
Company contends that an overall price increase of $19.4 million would be required to produce
the 10.75% ROE requested by the Company in this proceeding. The amount requested in this
case is constrained and limited by the Revised Protocol rate mitigation cap approved by the
Commission in Case No. PAC-02-, reducing the request by $3.1 million. Tr. p. 58 11.11-19.
The Revised Protocol is the allocation method utilized to allocate and assign generation
transmission and distribution costs to PacifiCorp s six retail state jurisdictions. Reference Case
No. P AC-02-3 (Inter-Jurisdictional Cost Allocation), Order No. 29708. The amount requested
in this case is also limited by the stipulation approved in Case No. PAC-07-05 for tariff
Schedules 400 (Monsanto Company) and 401 (Agrium, Inc.). That stipulation regulates the rates
of Monsanto and Agrium through December 2010 and reduces the Company s rate request by
$10.4 million.
The test period for the Application was based on the historical 12-month period
ending December 31 , 2007, adjusted for known and measurable changes through December 31
2008. Tr. p. 28. Pursuant to prior agreement (Case No. P AC-07-05), the cost-of-service
methodology used to allocate costs to the various customer classes could not change in this rate
case. Tr. p. 75. The net amount of actual increase under the Company s Application varies by
class of customer and usage. The ultimate prices customers will experience are determined by
the Company s rate spread and rate design proposals. For an average residential home using 850
kWh per month, customers would realize an increase of$3.55 per month.
The revised tariff schedules proposed by the Company reflect a proposed effective
date of October 19, 2008. The proposed effective date was suspended by the Commission in
Order No. 30653.
ORDER NO. 30783
Parties of Record
On October 3 2008 , the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Intervention
Deadline. Parties requesting and granted intervention were: Monsanto Company; Idaho
Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.; Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho; and
Agrium, Inc.
Settlement Stipulation
Commission Staff filed a Notice of Intent to Engage in Settlement Discussions with
the Commission on January 8, 2009. RP 272. A settlement conference was subsequently held
on January 15 , 2009, and was attended by all parties to the case with the exception of Agrium
Inc.
Pursuant to discussions, PacifiCorp, Commission Staff, Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association and Community Action Partnership of Idaho have entered into a Stipulation and
negotiated settlement that purports to resolve all issues raised in this proceeding. The Stipulation
does not impact or propose any changes to the rates of Monsanto or Agrium, whose rates are
controlled by a separate agreement approved in 2007 , Case No. P AC-07-, Order No. 30482.
Tr. p. 50. Monsanto participated in the settlement discussions and, while it does not adopt the
Stipulation, it has no objection to the Commission approving the same. Monsanto Comments
filed February 5 , 2009. The Stipulation was filed with the Commission on February 5, 2009.
StaffExh. 101; IDAPA 31.01.01.274. The stipulating parties represent that the Stipulation is in
the public interest and that all of its terms and conditions are fair, just and reasonable.
A technical and evidentiary hearing on the Settlement Stipulation in this matter was
held on March 11 , 2009, at the Commission s Hearing Room in Boise, Idaho.
The following parties appeared by and through respective counsel:
Rocky Mountain Power: Daniel E. Solander
Mark C. Moench
Tr. pp. 1-105.
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association:Eric L. Olsen
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho:Brad M. Purdy
Commission Staff:Scott D. Woodbury
ORDER NO. 30783
Testimony supporting the Stipulation and proposed settlement was presented by RMP witness
Ted Weston, Manager of Regulatory Affairs for the Company s Idaho jurisdiction; and Staff
witness Randy Lobb, Administrator of the Utilities Division. A public hearing on the Settlement
Stipulation was held in Shelley, Idaho on March 17, 2009, and a March 20, 2009, deadline for
public comments was established. Tr. pp. 106-123.
Under the terms of the Stipulation, Rocky Mountain Power will be authorized to
recover $4 382 632 (3.1 %) in additional annual electric revenue from non-contract customers.
The increase will be effective April 18, 2009, for all affected customers. Stipulation ~ 5.
The terms of the Stipulation are described and discussed below.
The parties agree that their proposal is a (comprehensive) settlement with
no party accepting a specific methodology for the revenue requirement
determination. The parties agree that the overall increase represents a fair
just and reasonable compromise of the issues raised in this proceeding and
that the Stipulation is in the public interest. Stipulation ~ 4.
Staff notes that the give-and-take during negotiations on all issues
resulted in a single overall revenue requirement that was
satisfactory to all parties. .. General settlement in this way
provided for compromise to arrive at a mutually acceptable
revenue requirement. It does not set a precedent that commits any
party to a specific position on an issue that might be more fully
addressed in the future. Tr. p. 61. E., return on equity (ROE)
was not specified in the Stipulation as a compromise to recognize
the significant difference in party positions. Tr. p. 67. To the
extent ROE is required for other purposes such as avoided cost and
AFUDC calculations, Staff supports continued use of the last
authorized ROE (10.25%), Order No. 30482.
In its settlement negotiations, Staff established an overall revenue
requirement target that it believed can be achieved with reasonable
certainty. It then negotiated additional, less certain, adjustments in
conjunction with likely Staff positions on various disputed issues
to arrive at an overall revenue requirement compromise. Tr. p. 63.
Staff notes that tax errors and undisputed adjustments totaling
some $600 000 were identified during the settlement negotiations
that would have increased the Company original revenue
requirement. Tr. p. 65. If identified errors and undisputed
adjustments in the Company s favor are included, the Settlement
represents a reduction of more than 32%. Tr. p. 54.
This Stipulation, PacifiCorp states, reduces the Company
requested revenue requirement increase by approximately 25%.
ORDER NO. 30783
The Stipulation should nevertheless allow the Company to
maintain its current level of earnings and continue to be an
excellent provider of energy services in Idaho. Rocky Mountain
Power has continued to procure demand-side as well as supply-
side resources. These resources represent significant investment
the Company is making on behalf of its customers to meet their
energy needs on a prudent and cost-effective basis. .. The
Company will continue to work to control its costs while
implementing mechanisms and pricing proposals to help customers
use electricity more efficiently. Tr. pp. 43-44.
There are four issues identified by Staff that makes negotiated
settlement the reasonable option in this case: (1) Most test year
expenses and investments have already been reviewed and adjusted
by five other state jurisdictions served by PacifiCorp. (2) Expense
and investment adjustments made on PacifiCorp s system level
trickle down to affected Idaho retail customers at only 2.1 % of the
original adjustment. (3) Multi-state process (MSP) jurisdictional
allocation commitments already limit the level of revenue
requirement increase that can be passed on to Idaho retail
customers. (4) The stipulated settlement approved by the
Commission in Case No. PAC-07-05 contains the following
terms:
With respect to the rate plan for 2008 through 20 I 0 for Agrium
and Monsanto , the Company agrees that in any rate filing during
the three-year contract period of such rate plans it will not seekto recover any revenue shortfalls related to Agrium and
Monsanto from other Idaho customers when compared to cost-
of-service studies in those filings. (PAC-07-05 Stipulation ~
10.
The cost-of-service (COS) 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. (PAC-
07-05 Stipulation ~ 11.) Tr. pp. 51-52.
The parties agree to establish the total Company base rate net power cost
at $982 million, as filed in this Application, which will be necessary for
calculation purposes in Rocky Mountain Power currently pending
application for approval of an Energy Cost Adjustment Mechanism
(ECAM) in Case No. P AC-08-08. Stipulation ~
ORDER NO. 30783
Staff notes that it has not agreed at this time to the Company
ECAM proposal nor has it agreed that an ECAM mechanism is
warranted for RMP in Idaho. Tr. pp. 68-69.
The parties agree that Rocky Mountain Power acquisition of the
Chehalis generating plant in Chehalis, Washington was a prudent decision
and in the public interest, and costs related to the plant acquisition and
operation included in this case are reasonable and are included in rate
base. Stipulation ~ 7.
Staff notes that Chehalis is a 500 MW natural gas-fired combined-
cycle generation facility acquired by PacifiCorp on September 15
2008.
Staff verified that Pacifi Corp s 2007 IRP identified a future deficit
between the Company s projected peak capacity needs and its
resources available to serve peak demand. In 2007 , the Company
issued a RFP seeking up to 1 700 MW of cost-effective base load
resources. The Chehalis plant was not bid into that RFP; instead, it
became available for a limited time in the market, outside of the
RFP bidding process. Waivers of the RFP regulatory requirements
were obtained from Oregon and Utah. Reports prepared by three
independent evaluators (Merrimac Energy Group, Bodington &
Company and Boston Pacific Company) and submitted in those
states, supported the Company s acquisition and concluded that
even though the Chehalis plant was not bid into the RFP, it likely
would have been selected. Staff reviewed the independent
evaluator reports as part of its analysis, reviewed the Company
analysis and performed an independent analysis. Tr. pp. 70-72.
Staff concludes that the acquisition of the Chehalis plant is in the
public interest and provides a favorably priced, flexible resource
that will assist the Company in meeting the resource needs of its
customers at the lowest reasonable cost.
The parties agree that the demand-side management programs proposed
by Rocky Mountain Power in Case No. PAC-08-01 are prudent.
Further, the parties agree that a total of $50 000 of demand-side
management program funds will be made available to Southeastern Idaho
Community Action Agency and Eastern Idaho Community Action
Partnership to be used to support conservation education as a component
of Rocky Mountain Power s Low Income Weatherization Program
Schedule 21. Conservation education program costs will be recovered
through the demand-side management surcharge. Stipulation ~ 8.
Staff accepts PacifiCorp s 2006-2007 DSM expenditures as
prudent. The Company evaluates the cost-effectiveness of its
ORDER NO. 30783
programs using the total resource cost test (TRC), the utility cost
test (UTC), and the participant cost test (PCT). The Company
maintains and Staff has verified that its programs meet
Commission-approved cost-effective criteria. Staff has also
verified that the methodology used by the Company to evaluate
benefits and costs properly capture program energy savings.
Additionally, Staff is satisfied that the Company periodically
reviews and updates its DSM business base and DSM program
assumptions and cost-effectiveness and makes changes as
necessary. Although the Company has not yet obtained
competitive bid third-party evaluations in Idaho, it is in the process
of doing so. RMP has actively marketed its DSM programs and
education to its Idaho customers and many of its customers have
participated in them. Tr. pp. 72-74.
CAP AI proposes that RMP fund an energy conservation education
program specifically targeted to low-income customers. The two
CAP agencies currently providing low-income service within
RMP's service territory are SEICA and EICAP. The parties
agreed to work collaborately to arrive at a fair, just and reasonable
allocation of funding (# of RMP customers in each of the
respective CAP service areas, etc.) and CAP AI agreed to submit a
low-income education program proposal to the Company by May
1. The program will fund personnel and materials to CAP agencies
to provide conservation education to all RMP customers who apply
for LIHEAP. Tr. pp. 95-98.
The parties agree that the issue raised in the Company s testimony related
to the Energy Trust of Oregon Funding of the Goodnoe Hills Wind
Generation plant will be deferred to Rocky Mountain Power s next filed
general rate case. Stipulation ~ 9.
The issue deferred deals with how renewable energy credits
generated from the Goodnoe Hills Wind project should be
allocated among the service jurisdictions given that the Oregon
Energy Trust contributed directly to project development. Tr. p.
81.
Rocky Mountain Power agrees that it will include an inverted tier rate
design proposal or option for residential customers in its next filed general
rate case for the Commission s consideration. Stipulation ~ 10.
Tiered rates were recently approved by the Commission for Idaho
Power residential customers. It does not follow, however, Staff
contends, that tiered rates should automatically be required of
RMP. There are some significant differences between Idaho
ORDER NO. 30783
Power and RMP, Staff notes, that make further evaluation of a
tiered rate design necessary. For instance, RMP already has a
residential time-of-use rate and Idaho represents only 6% of
PacifiCorp s customer base. A tiered rate design will not have the
impact on a system basis for RMP that it will have for Idaho
Power, given that Idaho Power s customers represent about 95% of
Idaho Power s customer base. Tr. p. 69.
The parties agree to the rate spread set forth in the following table. The
calculations are based on the ratio of Rocky Mountain Power s proposed
revenue requirement increase of$5 871 441 to the settled revenue required
increase of $4 382 632. Details of the rate spread are included in
Attachment 1 to the Stipulation; also Exhibit 29.
Customer Class Application Settlement
Residential - Schedule 1 73%53%
Residential - Schedule 36 73%53%
General Service
Schedule 23/23A
Schedule 6/6A18/35 96%94%
Schedule 9 96%94%
Schedule 19 31%1.73%
Irrigation
Schedule 10 31%1.73%
Public Street Lighting
Schedules 717A , 12
Stipulation ~ 11.
Staff believes that the proposed revenue spread reasonably applies
the results of the cost-of-service study previously approved by the
Commission and accepted by the parties in this case. Tr. p. 77.
The parties agree that the design of rates by rate schedule (rate design)
shall be consistent with the Company s filed proposals as adjusted for the
revenue requirement in this Settlement. Stipulation ~ 12.
Idaho s average residential customer on Schedule I uses 850 kWh per month. At that
usage level residential customers would experience an addition of $3.09 per month to their
summer bills and $2.38 per month to their winter bills. Tr. p. 41.
The stipulating parties recommend that the Commission approve the Settlement
Stipulation for an April 18, 2009, effective date. RP 274.
ORDER NO. 30783
Monsanto
In a letter filing with the Commission (February 5, 2009), Monsanto agrees "that it
does not adopt the Stipulation but has no objection to the Commission approving the same.
Monsanto s current and future rates are established pursuant to the terms of a
stipulation approved in Case No. PAC-07-05 (Order No. 30482), and will not be subject to
further adjustment prior to January 1 2011.
It is significant to note, Monsanto contends, that Monsanto s firm rates and
curtailment credit rates were increased 3% effective January 1 2009, and will again increase 5%
effective January 1 , 2010, (Schedule 400). Monsanto s number of economic curtailment hours
increased from 800 in 2008 to 830 for 2009 and will increase to 850 for 2010.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered the filings of record in Case No. PAC-
08-07 including the Stipulation of parties (and proposed settlement). The supporting context
for the Commission s deliberation regarding the reasonableness of the Stipulation terms is the
Commission s record of hearing in this case, which includes by reference the Company
pre filed direct testimony and exhibits. Commission Rules of Procedure 282, 283; Tr. p. 3. The
Commission is also informed by the transcript of the Shelley, Idaho proceeding, where
customers and other parties of interest were provided the opportunity to raise their concerns and
give testimony, and by filed public comments. The Commission finds that the established record
forms a sufficient basis for decision and that no further hearing or procedure is required.
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. See Tr. Exh. 101.
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.
...
ORDER NO. 30783
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 March 11 2009, transcript of proceedings, the Company initially
requested an overall increase in its revenues of $5.9 million or 4.0%. Tr. p. 25; Stipulation ~ 2.
The increase amount agreed to by the parties in the Stipulation is $4.38 million or 3.1 %. Tr. p.
33; Stipulation ~ 5. The Stipulation does not impact or propose any changes to the rates of
Monsanto or Agrium, whose rates are controlled by a separate agreement approved in 2007. The
rates of Monsanto and Agrium increased 3% on January 1 2009 and will increase again 5% on
January 1 2010.
The Commission finds the Stipulation and negotiated settlement terms 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 to the Stipulation. We find the settlement terms
regarding the establishment of a total Company base rate net power cost of $982 million
(Stipulation ~ 6), the prudence of the Chehalis generating plant acquisition (Stipulation ~ 7), the
prudence of the DSM programs proposed by the Company in its underlying case (Stipulation
8), the proposed energy conservation education program targeted to low-income customers
(Stipulation ~ 8), and the Company s commitment to include an inverted tier rate design proposal
for residential customers in its next filed general rate case (Stipulation ~ 10) to be just, fair and
reasonable and in the public interest.
The Commission finds the $4.38 million 3.1% 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 non-contract customer service
schedules that we find reasonable for an effective date of April 18, 2009, are set forth in
Stipulation Exhibit 101 , page 12, and are depicted in Attachment A to this Order.
In reviewing the transcripts of the public hearing in Shelley, the Commission notes
that the sufficiency of the Commission s notice was raised by the only customer who testified.
Our record of proceedings in this case reveals that the Commission issued three news releases.
An October 8 , 2008 , press release announced the filing of the case and notice of procedure. A
December 29 2008, press release noticed times and places for workshops, although those had to
be canceled due to inclement weather. A February 12 2009, press release announced a proposed
ORDER NO. 30783
settlement in the case and a public hearing scheduled for March 17, 2009 in Shelley. A week
before the public hearing, an e-mail reminder was distributed to all media outlets who received
the press releases. The press releases and e-mail reminders were sent to daily newspapers in
Idaho Falls, Pocatello and Rexburg/St. Anthony, to Associated Press, to weekly newspapers in
Preston, Malad, Soda Springs, Montpelier, Shelley, Rigby, and Driggs, to the Idaho Business
Review. Press releases and e-mail reminders were sent to the ABC, CBS and NBC television
affiliates in Idaho Falls and Pocatello and to KSL- TV in Salt Lake City. The same information
was sent to five AM radio stations as well as the public radio FM stations in southeastern Idaho.
Short of buying paid advertisements, the Commission has no way to ensure media outlets will
print or air press releases. There is an ongoing effort by the Commission s public information
officer to maintain communication with reporters and editors in the hope they will give proper
attention to our press releases when they are issued.
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
(Idaho) 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 ($4 500 - legal $4 380; costs $120) and the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association ($18 003.56 -legal $5 503; consultant $12 500).
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
ORDER NO. 30783
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 filed
by CAP AI and lIP A comport with the procedural and technical requirements of the
Commission s Rules.
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI)
As reflected in its Petition for Intervenor Funding and in its Settlement Stipulation
supporting testimony, CAP AI proposed:
. That the Commission consider in its rate deliberations the dire state of
poverty in which a significant percentage ofRMP's customers live.
. That RMP in its next general rate case filing submit a proposal for and/or
analysis of the appropriateness of tiered rates.
. That RMP fund an energy conservation education program targeted to
low-income customers and agreed to submit a program proposal to the
Company by May 1.
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. (lIP A)
lIP A in its Petition for Intervenor Funding and also in supporting comments filed
February 25 , 2009, notes that, although this case was ultimately settled, the Irrigators had to
prepare as though it was a regular rate case, e., corresponding, collaborating, gathering
information, drafting and reviewing documentation and negotiating changes.
The Irrigators believe that the new expanded dispatchable Schedule 72A irrigation
load control credit rider dispatch program is a cost effective demand response program that
should be adopted by the Commission. Reference Case No. PAC-09-01 (Modified Procedure
- comment deadline April 13 , 2009). Implementation of the new proposed parameters will
provide 200 MW of interruption capability during summer system peak lIP A contends, and will
serve to lower generation and transmission costs and the jurisdictional allocation of those costs in
a manner that will lower Idaho s overall revenue requirement. The Irrigators worked closely
with the Company to develop this program.
lIP A notes that its member contributions have been falling presumably due to the
current depressed economy, increased operating costs and threats relating to water right
ORDER NO. 30783
protection issues. As a result of financial constraints, lIPA's participation in this review and
Settlement has been selective and primarily on a limited basis.
Commission Findings
Submitted for Commission consideration are the Petitions for Intervenor Funding
filed by Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho ($4 500) and the Idaho Irrigation
Pumpers Association ($18 003 .56). The Commission has reviewed the Petitions, the Stipulation
and the testimony and comments of the Petitioners.
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A and Commission
Rules of Procedure 161-165. Rule 162 of the Commission s Rules of Procedure provides the
form and content requirements for a petition for intervenor funding.
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
(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 the Petitions for Intervenor Funding were timely filed and
comport with the procedural and technical requirements set forth in Rules 161-165 of the
Commission s Rules of Procedure.
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
need for an energy conservation education program targeted to low-income customers and
agreed to develop a program. We find it fair, just and reasonable to award the total request of
CAP AI in the amount of $4 500 and find that the public interest is well served by such award.
We find the itemized costs of CAP AI to be reasonable and recognize that the cost to CAP AI
ORDER NO. 30783
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 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
$47 000 in the bank with outstanding accounts payable from participation in prior cases and this
case totaling approximately $53 000. We appreciate the participation of the Irrigators in this
case and recognize their contribution to the ultimate resolution of issues. The Irrigators have
requested $18 003.56. We find it fair, just and reasonable to award the amount requested.
We find that the Petitions of CAP AI and the Irrigators satisfy the substantive findings
that we are required to make to justify an award. IDAPA 31.01.01. 165.01.a-e. We find that the
participation and presentations of each, as reflected in their respective prefiled testimonies or
comments and the Stipulation, materially contributed to the Commission s decision. Both add
informed perspectives to the hearing record. We find that the recommendations and perspectives
of each differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of Commission Staff and provided
measurable form and substance to the Settlement Stipulation.
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).
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. P AC-08-07 approving a $4.38 million (3.1 %) increase
ORDER NO. 30783
authorized annual base tariff revenue for electric service for non-contract customers of Rocky
Mountain Power for an effective date of April 18 , 2009. The Company is directed to file
amended tariffs comporting with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and the Community Action Partnership Association of
Idaho s Petition for Intervenor Funding is granted in the amount of $4 500. Reference Idaho
Code ~ 61-617 A. Rocky Mountain Power is directed to pay said amount to CAP AI within 28
days from the date of this Order. IDAP A 31.01.01.165.02. Rocky Mountain Power 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. Idaho Code
61-617A(3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED and Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
Petition for Intervenor Funding is granted in the amount of $18 003.56. Reference Idaho Code
61-617 A. Rocky Mountain Power is directed to pay said amount to the Irrigators within 28 days
from the date of this Order. IDAPA 31.01.01.165.02. Rocky Mountain Power 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
61-617A(3).
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. 30783
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
/ ~
j-J\
day of April 2009.
D. KEMPTON, PRE ENT
(/~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
~c.-
MACK A. REDFORD, COM I
ATTEST:
Je D. J ell
Co mISSIOn Secretary
blsIO:PAC-08-07 sw4
ORDER NO. 30783
Average Stipulated Retail Rates For Idaho Customers ofPacifiCorp
Present Present Proposed
Description Sch.(~)/kWh (~)/kWh
Residential Sales
Residential Service
Residential Optional TOO I
Total Residential
Commercial & Industrial
General Service - Large Power 3
General Svc. - Lg. Power (R&F)6.49
General Service - High Voltage
Irrigation
Comm. & Ind. Space Heating
General Service Optional TOO
Total Commercial & Industrial
Total Sales to Ultimate Customers
Notes:
I Includes increase in Customer Charge
2 No rate changes for Schedules 23/23A, Special Contract Customers, and Public Street
Lighting (7/7A, 11 , 12)
3 Remaining Schedule 8 Customers moved to Schedule 6
A TT ACHMENT A
ORDER NO. 30783
CASE NO. P AC-08-