20101222Response to CAPAI Post-hearing Brief.pdf

Mark C. Moench
Daniel E. Solander
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, -Utah 841 1 1
Telephone No. [phone]
Facsimile No. [phone]
mark.moench(fpacificorp.com
daniel.solander(fpacificorp.com
Paul J. Hickey
Hickey & Evans, LLP
1800 Carey Avenue, Suite 700
P.O. Box 467
Cheyenne, WY 82003-0467
Ph. 307-634-1525
FX.307-638-7335
phickeyCihickeyevans.com
Attorneysfor Rocky Mountain Power
RE\~':~
t'~A 3~ 03
i\\\\ìOEC 22 \ \ .
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER FOR
APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO ITS
ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
AND A PRICE INCREASE OF $27.7
MILLION, OR APPROXIMATELY
13.7 PERCENT
)
) CASE NO. PAC-E-IO-07
)
)
) RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING
) BRIEF
)
)
)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S RESPONSE
Rocky Mountain Power hereby submits to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
("Commission") its response to the post-hearing brief fied by the Community Action
Parnership Association ("CAP AI"). In support of its response, Rocky Mountain Power states as
follows:
1
..
1. On December, 2, 2010, the final day of the public hearings in this case, counsel
for CAPAI requested, and received, permission from the Commission to file a post-hearing brief.
Chairman Smith emphasized that the brief was to address only legal issues, and limited the brief
to ten pages.
2. On December 21,2010, CAPAI filed its post-hearing brief. The brief is 15 pages
long, well in excess of the limit imposed by the Commission, and is clearly not limited to legal
issues. More than two pages are devoted to a recitation of procedural issues related to the Low
Income Weatherization Program CLIW A"); fully four pages devoted to summarizing testimony
given by Rocky Mountain Power witnesses; and nearly five pages are used to argue that Rocky
Mountain Power has not completed a timely evaluation of it LIW A program after CAP AI notes
that Order No. 30239 states that the evaluation wil be completed after March 31, 2009, refuting
their own argument. Most importantly, at no point in the brief is there any discussion of a legal
issue that must be evaluated by the Commission as part of this general rate proceeding.
3. Rocky Mountain Power does not believe that CAP AI has raised any substantive
issues in its brief that were not addressed by the Company at hearing. The testimony of Barb
Coughlin clearly described the study the Company has undertaken to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness of the LIW A program, and complete a report in 2011. Moreover, as noted above,
the Company has not failed to comply with and prior settlement agreement terms or meet any
Commission-imposed deadline with respect to the evaluation.
4. CAP AI attempts to raise a convoluted argument regarding burden of proof and
that Rocky Mountain Power had the obligation to somehow foresee concerns that CAP AI may
have with the existing low income programs and funding and address them in its original
2
application and testimony. The CAPAI Brief states: "If the Commission finds that as a
legal matter Rocky Mountain carried the burden of proof on the LIWA-related
issues raised by CAP AI, the Company clearly failed to do so." (CAPAI Brief at 4)
Rocky Mountain Power has the burden of proof in this case to support its request for rate relief
and for any changes that it is proposing for new or existing tariffs or programs. Clearly, the
Company has met its burden of proof regarding any existing programs or tariffs that have already
been approved by the Commission, and any party wishing to change or modify them would carry
the burden to bring forward new evidence on why changes are required. Rocky Mountain Power
did not propose any changes to LIW A and, therefore, did not have any burden to address the
existing low income programs or tariffs. The burden of proof to support the "LIWA-related
issues raised by CAPAI" would clearly fall to CAP AI, not the Company. In their own brief,
CAP AI acknowledges that Rocky Mountain Power does not carry any legal burden in this case
to address LIW A issues when they state, "CAP AI respectfully submits that, even though
Rocky Mountain had no legal obligation to address LIWA in this case, had the
Company..." (CAPAI Brief at 3). The Company respectfully submits that CAPAI did not
meet their burden of proof in this regard and no changes should be made to LIW A at this time.
WHEREFORE, Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests the following:
1. That the Commission accept Rocky Mountain Power's response to the post-
hearing brief filed by CAP AI in this proceeding, and close the record in this phase of Rocky
Mountain Power's 2010 general rate case.
3
DATED this 21st day of December 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
~¿/ /? pi
ck /?,;,/ )6/_./-
Mark C. Moench
Paul J. Hickey
Daniel E. Solander
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
4