20130809Response to CAPAI's Motion to Compel.pdf

ROCKY MOUNTAIN L Mark C Moench
I w R Senior Vice President and General Counsel
A DIVISION OF PACIFICORP ‘i I -—o Ci 57 201 S.Main Street,Suite 2400
SaitLake City,UT 84111
801-220-4459 Office
‘Ti h 801220-4058 fa.,.
[e-mail]
August 8,2013
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Jean D.Jewel!
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W.Washington
Boise,ID $3702
Attention:Jean D.Jewel!
Commission Secretary
RE:CASE NO.PAC-E-13-04
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER TO
INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH INTERRESTED PARTIES ON ALTERNATIVE RATE
PLAN PROPOSALS
Enclosed please find the original and seven (7)copies of Rocky Mountain Power’s Response to
the Motion to Compel filed by Community Action Partnership of Idaho (“CAPAI”)in this
proceeding.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Mark C.Moench
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Rocky Mountain Power
Enclosures
Cc:Service List
Mark C.Moench (ISB #8946)
Daniel E.Solander (ISB #893 1)
201 South Main Street,Suite 2300
Salt Lake City,Utah 84111
Telephone No.[phone]
facsimile No.[phone]
[e-mail]
daniel.so1anderpacificorp.com
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Power
V
2P1 AUG —9 [1 9:57
IL
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF PACIFICORP DBA
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER TO
INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH
INTERESTED PARTIES ON
ALTERNATIVE RATE PROPOSALS
)
)
CASE NO.PAC-E-13-04
RESPONSE TO CAPAI’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER’S RESPONSE TO CAPAI’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
Comes now,Rocky Mountain Power (the “Company”)and pursuant to Rules 221-225 of
the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,3 1.01.01.221-225,as well as Rules 26 and 34 of the Idaho
Rules of Civil Procedure hereby submits to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (the
“Commission”)its Response to the Motion to Compel filed by Community Action Partnership of
Idaho (“CAPAI”)in this proceeding.
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
Rocky Mountain Power will largely limit its response to the actual Motion to Compel,
and will address only the most egregious misstatements contained in the Brief Supporting the
Motion to Compel and the premature “Reply to the Response”1 filed by CAPAI.
1.With respect to the supposed procedural irregularities discussed by CAPAI on
pages two through 12 of its Brief in Support of Motion to Compel,Rocky Mountain Power
disagrees with CAPAI’s characterization of the process that resulted in the negotiation of an
extension of the existing two year rate plan without the need to file an additional rate case by
Rocky Mountain Power,with all of its attendant costs and use of Company,party and
Commission resources.The Commission’s Notice of Application issued March 12,2013,was
very clear on the intent and purpose of these proceedings
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Rocky Mountain has expressed an interest
in exploring alternatives to filing a general rate case...The Company states that
the purpose of initiating discussions regarding possible alternatives to a rate case
is to “avoid the necessity and associated expenses for all parties [by]avoiding a
general rate case.
Rocky Mountain Power worked closely over several months with the Commission staff
and the other intervening parties to craft a solution that provided adequate notice to all
parties,complied with Commission rules,and eliminated the need for a general rate case
filing.This effort was undertaken by all parties with great care and attention to proper
Idaho Public Utilities Commission protocol for settlement discussions.CAPAI’s
arguments to the contrary in its Brief are both incorrect,and moreover have no relevance
to the Motion to Compel before the Commission.
The statements contained in the “Reply to the Response”that counsel believed the Term Sheet offering to settle the
Motion to Compel sent by Rocky Mountain Power to be a responsive pleading to the Motion to Compel are,at best,
completely disingenuous.The attachment was clearly labeled as a Term Sheet and contained absolutely no
indication that Rocky Mountain Power intended the document to be anything other than an attempt to settle the
discovery dispute with CAPAI.
2
2.The Motion to Compel and supporting brief filed by CAPAI demonstrate a
fundamental misunderstanding of the discovery process and Rocky Mountain Power’s duties to
respond to discovery requests.As described below,Rocky Mountain Power properly responded
to the discovery request,and is under no duty or obligation to perform the study requested by
CAPAI.
3.Rocky Mountain Power would first respond to the Motion to Compel by stating
that the statements contained in the Brief in Support of Motion to Compel that Rocky Mountain
Power has refused or failed to provide a response to CAPAI’s discovery requests are completely
false.On April 29,2013,CAPAI propounded a set of discovery requests to Rocky Mountain
Power consisting of six questions with subparts.Rocky Mountain Power timely and properly
responded to all of these requests,including 6(b),which is the subject of the dispute.
6(b)requested:
b.Assuming no change to the Company’s existing monthly basic
charge,calculate the effects on the low-income proxy groups’monthly bills
in comparison to non-low income residential customers (using test year
actual monthly consumption)if the existing two-tiered rate design is changed
such that the consumption amount of the first tier is increased from the
existing 700 kWh summer block to $00 kWhlmonth,1000 kWh and 1200
kWh.Please provide the same data for the winter block of 1000 kWh if the
block were changed to 800 kWh,1200 kWh and 1400 kWh.
Rocky Mountain Power’s response was timely provided on May 29,2013,and
completely and properly responded to the request by stating:
The Company has not performed the two-tiered rate design analysis
requested by CAPAI.As specified in paragraph 18 of the Stipulation if
CAPAI is party to the Stipulation the Company agrees to participate in a
collaborative rate design process to evaluate alternatives.
To date,Rocky Mountain Power has not completed the requested analysis.
3
4.CAPAI’s assertion that Rocky Mountain Power has failed to assert any legal basis
for refusing to respond is equally baseless.Rule 34 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure permits
a party to serve on any other party a request to inspect or copy documents or electronically stored
information within the responding party’s “possession,custody,or control.”“Documents are
deemed to be within the possession,custody or control of a party and subject to a request for
production if the party has actual possession,custody or control or has the legal right to obtain
the documents on demand.”Tomlinson v.El Paso Corp.,245 F.R.D.474,476 (D.Col.2007)
(discussing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34).
5.In this situation,Rocky Mountain Power is not in “possession,custody,or
control”of the results of the study requested by CAPAT in request 6(b)because,as stated in the
response,it has not completed the requested analysis.2
6.In order to achieve an all-party Stipulation,as part of the data response,Rocky
Mountain Power reiterated what it had previously told CAPAI:The Company would perform
the requested study if CAPAI became a party to the Stipulation,or,as an alternative,the
Company would participate in a collaborative rate design process with CAPAI to evaluate
alternatives.
7.This approach is similar to the collaborative process Rocky Mountain Power
previously participated in with Avista,Idaho Power,CAPAI and other interested parties in
generic case GNR-E-12-Ol where the Commission held public workshops to evaluate the cost-
effectiveness and funding of low income weatherization programs.While Rocky Mountain
Power did not propose specific dates or agenda in its discovery response,to imply that CAPAI
2 CAPAI’s argument that Rocky Mountain Power should agree to perform the requested analysis because it has
agreed to perform similar analyses as part of its Washington general rate case is inapropos.The Washington Utility
and Transportation Commission rules require the Company to perform limited analyses on behalf of intervenors in
certain situations.
4
has no idea what type of information might be provided or discussed in a collaborative process to
explore rate design issues strains credulity.
8.The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure are clear as to what must be provided in
response to requests for production,and Rocky Mountain Power has fully complied with their
requirements.Despite this,in the interests of not wasting Commission resources hearing oral
argument on CAPAI’s motion,and not incurring further costs and expending additional
Company time,Rocky Mountain Power will provide the results of the requested studies to
CAPAI on or before August 12,2013.
WHEREFORE,Rocky Mountain Power respectfully requests the following:
1.That the Commission:(1)deny CAPAI’s Motion to Compel;and (2)disregard
any statements in CAPAI’s Brief in Support of Motion to Compel and “Reply to the Response”
not directly related to the Motion to Compel before the Commission.
DATED this 8th day of August 2013.
Respectfully submitted,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
Mark C.Moench
Daniel E.Solander
Attorneysfor Rocky Mountain Power
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of August,2013,1 caused to be served,via electronic mail,a true and
correct copy of Rocky Mountain Power’s Response in PAC-E-13-04 to the following:
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main,Suite 2300
Salt Lake City,UT $4111
[e-mail]
Daniel E.Sotander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main,Suite 2300
Salt Lake City,UT $4111
[e-mail]
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
datarequestcipacificorp.com
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
Box 1731
Boise,ID 83701
kmiller(i,snalteriveralliance.org
Randall C.Budge
Racine,Olson,Nyc,Budge &Bailey
201 E.Center
P0 Box 1391
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
E-Mail:rcb(iracinelaw.net
Neil Price
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W,Washington (83702)
P0 Box $3720
Boise,ID 83720-0074
neil.price(ipuc.idaho.gov
James R.Smith
Monsanto Company
P.O.Box 816
Soda Springs,ID 83276
[e-mail]
Anthony Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village,OH 44140
[e-mail]
Eric L.Olsen
ASSOCIATION,[NC:Racine,Olson,Nye,Budge
&Bailey
(Exhibit Nos.30 1-400)201 E.Center
P0 Box 1391
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
[e-mail]
Brubaker &Associates
16690 Swingley Ridge Rd.,#140
Chesterfield,MO 63017
[e-mail]
Ronald Williams
Williams Bradbury,P.C.
1015 W.Hays St.
Boise,ID 83702
ron(iwilliamsbradbury.com
Benjamin J.Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N.6th St.
Boise,ID 83702
[e-mail]
Tim Buller
Agrium,Inc.
3010 Conda Rd.
Soda Springs,ID 83276
TBul1er(1iagrium.com
Don Schoenbeck
RCS,Inc.
900 Washington St.,Suite 780
Vancouver,WA 98660
[e-mail]
Amy Eissler
Coordinator,Regulatory Operations