20110318Cross-petition to CAPAI's Petition for Clarification etc.pdf

~H~M4
March 18,2011
RECE D
zori MAR' 8 PH 3: 09 201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
VI HAND DELIVERY
iDAHOUTILITIES C
Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise,ID 83702
Re: Case No. PAC-E-IO-07 - Rocky Mountain Power's Cross-Petition to CAPAl's
Petition for ClarificationlReconsideration
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Please find enclosed an original and seven (7) copies of Rocky Mountain Power's Cross-
Petition to Community Action Parnership Association of Idaho's Petition for
Clarfication/econsideration. Electronic copies are being served on the paries today.
Please contact me directly at [phone] if you have questions or if I can be of further
assistace.
Sincerely, ~ / // / /~~//~.(kDanel E. Solander
cc: Service List
Enclosures
Mark C. Moench, Pro Hac Vice, r: t
Daniel E. Solander, Pro Hac Vice RL-CE ¡
201 South Main Street, Suite 230020, I MAR 18
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ¡. .
Telephone No. [phone]
Facsimile No. [phone]
mark.moench~pacificorp.com
daniel.solander~pacificorp .com
DORIGINAL
."'''. ,:i.-~
PM 3: 09
Paul J. Hickey, Pro Hac Vice
Hickey & Evans, LLP
1800 Carey Avenue, Suite 700
P.O. Box 467
Cheyenne, WY 82003-0467
Telephone No. [phone]
Facsimile No. [phone]
phickey(fhickeyevans.com
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
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
CROSS- PETITION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND
RECONSIDERATION
Comes now, Rocky Mountain Power ("Company") and in accordance with IPUC Rules
325 and 331, et seq., respectfully submits this Cross-Petition to the Petition for
Clarification/Reconsideration of Order No. 32196 fied by Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho ("CAP AI") in this case on March 11, 2011. Rocky Mountain Power
respectfully requests that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") reject CAP AI's
position that the Company committed to ongoing, annual funding of $50,000 for the Company's
1
Low-Income Conservation Education program ("conservation education"), and issue a finding
that the funding commitment was for a total of $50,000. In support of this Cross-Petition, Rocky
Mountain Power states as follows:
On February 4,2009, in Case No. PAC-E-08-07, the Parties entered into a stipulation to
resolve the case ("Stipulation"), which the Commission approved April 16, 2009 with Order No.
30783, which included the following paragraph:
Further, the Parties agree that a total of $50,000 of demand side management
program funds wil 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. Parties agree that it is the responsibility of the
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho to propose said education program
to Rocky Mountain Power by May 1, 2009 and that the proposal will contain funding
proportioning the $50,000 between the two agencies, objectives and any savings
estimates to assist in program evaluation and reporting requirements. The Parties agree
that the low income weatherization program (Schedule 21) and the conservation
education component of the program is in the public interest and is determined to be cost
effective even though the explicit quantification of benefits may not be possible, and
furthermore, the Parties agree to support the justification and recovery of these costs
through the demand side management surcharge funding. (emphasis added)
The Stipulation required CAP AI to provide a proposal of how the fuds would be used
by May 1, 2009. After several calls from RMP requesting the status CAP AI provided a proposal
which did not include thorough details needed to implement a meaningful program. In' order to
assist CAP AI in moving the program forward, RMP staff drafted an Energy Education Program
Plan in June 2009 that included program purpose, program description (including details on the
curriculum, kit contents, estimated kWh savings, and participate eligibility), program goals, data
collection, reporting, an evaluation plan and a program implementation timeline.
After continued coaxing by RMP, CAP AI submitted its first invoice in May 2010 for
$7,500 so they could order 500 energy efficiency kits from their vendor. These kits are intended
2
to be distributed during energy education sessions and include 3 CFL light bulbs, 1 refrigerator
temperature card, 10 outlet gaskets, 1 kitchen faucet aerator and 1 luminescent night light. RMP
worked with an outside consultant to design the kits with an estimated savings of 522 kWh per
kit.
RMP inquired as to the program status in August 2010, and CAP AI staff stated the
program was delayed until the 2010 - 2011 LIHEAP season with the following statement: "The
delay was due to Idaho Power and their energy kit program, the Idaho Power program was put
behind schedule due to a delay in ordering the kits which in turn delayed the distribution. The
agencies which wil be paricipating in the Rocky Mountain Power program also participated in
the Idaho Power program and so as not to over burden our agency and to make sure we could
serve the people who needed the information the most, we decided to delay the implementation."
RMP staff checked on the kit status with CAP AI staff in October 2010 and was told they
would be ordered on October 28, 2010. RMP finally received invoices from EICAP and
SEICAA in late November 2010 for remaining funds ($21,250 each). The invoice has not been
processed as CAP AI staff agreed that the curriculum should be completed first. CAP AI
provided RMP the first draft of currculum for review in January 2011 with the intent to have
curriculum final in March 2011.
On October 13, 2010, CAPAI asked a data request of Rocky Mountain Power in Case
No. PAC-E-I0-07, which noted that RMP had not proposed an increase to its existing
Conservation Education Program as part of Case No. P AC-E-l 0-07, and asking if there was a
specific rationale for not proposing such an increase in funding. Rocky Mountain Power
responded as follows:
3
Response to CAP AI Data Request 5
In Case No. P AC-E-08-07 Rocky Mountain Power committed to provide a one-time
payment of $50,000 for Conservation Education to Southeastern Idaho Community
Action Agency and Eastern Idaho Community Action Parnership. Company staff
worked with Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) to assist
them in the development of an Energy Education Program plan. This plan was
completed in June 2009; as of April 2010 Rocky Mountain Power has only received an
invoice from CAP AI for energy efficiency kits that wil be distributed through the
program. The payment for the kits totaled $7,500. As of August 10, 2010, the kits had
not been ordered and education had not been provided to Rocky Mountain Power
customers.
To date the Company has yet to be biled for $42,500, which is the majority of these
funds. The Company does not believe it would be appropriate to consider allocating
additional customer funds to cover costs associated with a program not yet fully
operating.
Accordingly, CAPAI data response 5, provided October 13,2010, reiterated clearly what was
stated in the stipulation and has been communicated several times during phone conversations
with CAP AI representatives that it was always Rocky Mountain Power's understanding and
commitment that the payment for the Conservation Education Program to be a one-time payment
totaling $50,000.
This directly refutes the position taken by CAP AI in its Petition for
Clarification/Reconsideration, in which it stated:
During the course of this proceeding, an issue previously unkown to CAP AI arose
through the rebuttal testimony of Rocky Mountain Power ("RMP" or "Company")
witness Barbara Coughlin when she referred to the Company's Low-Income
Conservation Education program ("conservation education") as a "one-time
commitment," as opposed to an annual, ongoing DSM program. The program was
established in RMP's last general rate case (PAC-E-08-07 - referred to herein as the "08-
7 case") and approved by the Commission in Order No. 30783. To CAP AI's knowledge,
RMP had never publicly taken this position prior to Ms. Coughlin's rebuttal testimony.
Thus, CAP AI did not anticipate this issue and had no opportunity under the case schedule
in this proceeding to address it through testimony or the introduction of other evidence at
hearing. CAP AI Petition for Clarificationleconsideration, pp. 1-2.
4
CAP AI had more than adequate notice of Rocky Mountain Power's position regarding the
Conservation Education program in Case No. PAC-E-08-07, and had ample opportunity to
present a witness of its own to testify regarding the need for continuing funding, or any other
argument regarding the program CAPAI cared to raise in Case No. PAC-E-I0-07. To claim
surprise of Rocky Mountain Power's position on this issue is disingenuous at best.
There is no additional evidence in the record that would support CAP AI's position that
the $50,000 payment to the Conservation Education program was to be an ongoing, annual
payment. In fact, as the testimony of Rocky Mountain Power witness Ms. Barbara A. Coughlin
makes clear, the Company considered the payment to be a one-time payment with a total of
$50,000. This was reiterated by Ms. Coughlin during cross-examination, as noted by CAPAI in
its petition. See Tr. VoL. VI, pp. 1066-1068. Any other interpretation of the stipulation in Case
No. PAC-E-08-07 is unsupported by the record and is simply not credible.
WHEREFORE RMP respectfully requests the Commission deny CAP AI's Petition for
Clarification!econsideration.
5
DATED this 18th day of March, 2011.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
¿Z// "e#// ~
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
phickey(fhickeyevans.com
Mark C. Moench
Daniel E. Solander
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone No. [phone]
Facsimile No. [phone]
mark.moench(fpacificorp.com
daniel. solander(fpacificorp.com
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of March, 2011, I caused to be served, via E-mail, a
tre and correct copy of Rocky Mountain Power's Cross-Petition to Clarification and
Reconsideration in PAC-E-1 0-07 to the following:
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey,
Charered
201 E. Center
P.O. Box 1391
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
E-Mail: elo(i1racinelaw.net
Tim Buller
Jason Haris
Agrium, Inc.
3010 Conda Road
Soda Springs, ID 83276
E-Mail: lbuHer(fagrium.com
JAHarrs(ßagrium.com
Brad Purdy
CAPAI
2019 N. 17th S1.
Boise, ID. 83702
E-mail: bmpurdy(â)hotmail.com
Anthony Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, Ohio 44140
E-mail: tortYfankel.net
James R. Smith (E-mail only)
Monsanto Company
P.O. Box 816
Soda Springs, Idaho 83276
E-Mail: iim.r.smith(ßmonsanto.com
Ronald L. Wiliams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise ID, 83702
E-mail: ron(ßwiliamsbradbury.com
Randall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey,
Chartered
201 E. Center
P.O. Box 1391
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
E-Mail: rcb(â)racine1aw.net
Paul J. Hickey
Hickey & Evans, LLP
1800 Carey Ave. , Suite 700
PO Box 467
Cheyenne, WY 82003
E-Mail: phickeYcPhickevevans.com
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
P.O. Box 844
Boise, Idaho 83702
E-mail: botto(ßidahoconservation.org
Katie Iverson (E-mail only)
Brubaker & Associates
17244 W. Cordova Cour
Sunise, Arzona 85387
E-Mail: kiversonißconsultbai.com
Melinda J. Davison
Davison Van Cleve, P.C.
333 S.W. Taylor, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
E-mail: mjd(âdvclaw.com
Scott Woodbur
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washington (83702)
POBox 83720
Boise, iD 83720-0074
E-Mail: scQityvoodbur(ãlpuc.idaho.gov
Dr. Don Reading (E-mail Only)
Idaho Conservation League
6070 Híl Road
Boise,ID 83703
E-mail: dreading¡ßmindspring.com
nCaV:~J
Carie Meyer
Coordinator, Administrative Services