20131024final_order_no_32910.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
October 24,2013
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN )CASE NO.PAC-E-13-04
POWER TO INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH )
INTERESTED PARTIES ON ALTERNATIVE )
RATE PLAN PROPOSALS )ORDER NO.32910
_____________________________________________________________________________
)
On March 1,2013,PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (“Rocky Mountain”)filed
an Application requesting that the Commission open a case “to identify interested parties that
would like to participate [mi settlement discussions”regarding alternatives to the Company
filing a general rate case.Application at 1.Accompanying the Application was Rocky
Mountain’s “Notice of Intent”to file a general rate case.Rule 122 requires certain utilities to file
a notice of intent at least 60 days before filing a general rate case.IDAPA 31.01 .01.122.01.The
Company acknowledged in its Notice that it could not file a general rate case before May 31,
2013,and that rates resulting from such rate case would not become effective until January 1,
2014.See Notice at 1;Order No.32432 at 6.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 12,2013,the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Intervention
Deadline directing Staff counsel to convene an informal prehearing conference so that the parties
might discuss a schedule for settlement conference and other preliminary matters.Order No.
32761 at 3.Subsequently,the Commission issued Orders granting intervention to Monsanto
Company (“Monsanto”);Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association,Inc.(“IIPA”);Idaho
Conservation League (“ICL”);Snake River Alliance (“SRA”);PacifiCorp Idaho Industrial
Customers (“PIIC”);and Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (“CAPAI”).See
Order Nos.32761,32779.
On April 19,2013 and May 2,2013.representatives of Rocky Mountain.Commission
Staff (“Staff’),Monsanto,IIPA.ICL,SRA,PIIC (collectively referred to as the “Parties”),and
CAPAI met at the Commission offices and participated in informal settlement discussions.On
June 3,2013,the Company filed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement (“Stipulation”)signed by all
the Parties,except CAPAI,that proposes,in lieu of a general rate case filing by the Company,to
implement a two-year rate plan beginning on January 1,2014.
ORDERNO.32910 1
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
The following is a summary of the relevant terms of the Parties’Stipulation:
Base Rates
1.The Parties agree that the Stipulation is filed in lieu of a general rate case.
Rocky Mountain agrees that it will not file another general rate case before
May 31,2015,with new rates not effective prior to January 1,2016.
2.The Parties agree that the base revenue requirement for all customer
schedules will increase by a uniform percentage of 0.77%in the energy
rate of each schedule.New rates will be effective on January 1,2014.
3.These rates allow recovery of the 27%of the Populus to Terminal
transmission line investment that was deemed plant held for future use in
Order No.32196.Commission Order No.32432 determined that this
investment is now used and useful and shall be included in rates on or
after January 1,2014.The base rate increase is designed to collect
approximately $2.0 million annually from Idaho customers.
ECAM
4.The Parties agree to the inclusion of and paying for a resource adder for
the Lake Side II generation facility that will be recovered through the
ECAM at 100%,for the period that the investment in the facility is not
reflected in rates as a component of rate base,beginning January 1,2015,
subject to the Lake Side II generation facility having achieved commercial
operation as of that date.The ECAM deferral will be determined by
multiplying the actual megawatt-hours of generation from the Lake Side II
generation facility by $1.99 per megawatt-hour Idaho Resource Adder.
The recovery of the Lake Side II resource adder will be capped after the
first 2,729,500 megawatt-hours of generation,or recovery of
approximately $5.43 million from Idaho customers through the ECAM.
Pursuant to Commission Order No.32771 the Parties have agreed to
modify the ECAM calculation by removing the wholesale sales line loss
adjustment from Monsanto and Agrium’s actual load used to calculate all
deferral balances except for the Load Change Adjustment Revenue
(LCAR)portion of the ECAM deferral.This change will be effective for
the ECAM deferral period starting June 1,2013 and ending on November
30,2013.
Effective December 1,2013,the ECAM deferral will be calculated on a
total Idaho basis;Monsanto and Agrium’s share will not be calculated and
deferred separately.The rates will be designed based on energy sales data.
Specifically,as in past ECAMs,the proposed rates will be calculated by
ORDER NO.32910 2
effectively dividing the total target amount for Idaho customers by the
energy sales data at their appropriate delivery voltage levels.
Depreciation Study and Carbon Plant
5.The Parties request Commission approval of the proposed accounting
treatment for the Company to establish a regulatory asset that would allow
the Company to defer,on a monthly basis,any aggregate net increase or
decrease in Idaho allocated depreciation expense for the period beginning
on the latter of January 1,2014,or the effective date in the Commission
Order approving new depreciation rates,until the date that new
depreciation rates are reflected in customer rates.
6.The Parties agree that the Company will be allowed to recover or be
required to refund the deferred depreciation expense beginning on the
effective date of the next general rate case.The balance shall be
amortized over a period not to exceed 10 years from the effective date of
the next rate case.The Parties agree that depreciation of the Carbon Plant
should not be included in this deferral.
7.Commission Order No.32701 authorized the Company to create a
regulatory asset to transfer the remaining Carbon Plant balances upon
retirement from electric plant in service and accumulated depreciation to
be amortized from the date of transfer to the regulatory assets through
December 31,2020.The regulatory asset as of the date of transfer will
include the un-depreciated book balance assuming that existing
depreciation rates were used prior to the plant retirement date.The
difference between the depreciation rate effective in 2014 and the current
depreciation rate based on the prior decommissioning date of 2020 will be
included in the Remaining Carbon Balances regulatory asset until Carbon
depreciation rates are updated in the next general rate case.
8.The Parties agree to the creation of a regulatory asset for future recovery
from Idaho ratepayers of Idaho’s allocated share of the prudently incurred
Carbon Removal Costs.The projected removal costs were identified in the
calculation of the new depreciation expense as part of Case PAC-E-13-02,
which is subject to Commission review and approval.
9.The Parties agree that the Company shall be allowed to recover from
customers Idaho’s share of the prudently incurred Carbon Removal Costs
over a reasonable period determined by the Commission in a future
proceeding.The amortization of the Carbon Removal Costs will begin
when the amortization expense is included in rates in the next general rate
case.
ORDER NO.32910 3
Monsanto Contract
10.The Parties agree that a new Electric Service Agreement (“ESA”)between
the Company and Monsanto,which is currently set to expire on December
31,2013,shall begin on January 1,2014 with an initial term through
December 31,2015;the ESA shall include a new section allowing for an
Interruptible Credit Annual True-up;the ESA shall include the increase
associated with the Populus to Terminal Transmission line described
above;Monsanto and the Company agree to prepare and execute an ESA
that reflects these changes to the contract and provide it to the
Commission for approval;Monsanto and the Company will continue to
work collaboratively and in good faith to address the terms and conditions
and to optimize the value of Monsanto’s curtailment products to Monsanto
and the Company,including a discussion of cost of service methodologies
as applied to the Monsanto load and how said methodologies could be
utilized in the next general rate case.Monsanto and the Company will
report to the Staff and Commission as appropriate on the progress made.
Rate Design
11.If CAPAI is a signatory to the Stipulation,the Parties agree to the
following:the Parties agree to conduct a rate design collaborative process
to evaluate potential changes to rate design for the Company’s residential
service,Schedule 1,and general service,Schedule 6 and 23.The Parties
further agree to meet within one month after the Stipulation is filed to
begin the collaborative discussions.If CAPAT is not a signatory to the
Stipulation,the Parties agree that this Paragraph is of no effect and does
not apply.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
The Commission convened public hearings on August 27,2013,in Rigby,Idaho,and
August 28,2013 by telephone for the purpose of soliciting public testimony regarding the
Company’s Application and the Parties’Stipulation.At the Rigby hearing,the Commission took
testimony from two Rocky Mountain customers.There were no participants at the telephonic
hearing.
The Commission also received two public comments.Both comments opposed the
proposed rate increase and asked the Commission deny the Stipulation as a matter of principle.
One customer asserted that any improvements to the Company’s system should be paid for solely
by stockholders.
ORDER NO.32910 4
THE TECHNICAL HEARING
A.Motion to Strike
On September 11,2013,the Commission convened the technical hearing in this case.
As a preliminary matter,the Commission took up the Company’s Motion to Strike a portion of
CAPAI’s prefiled direct testimony.Argument was heard from counsel for Rocky Mountain and
counsel for CAPAI.The Commission issued a bench ruling granting the Motion in part and
denying the Motion in part.In particular,the Commission ruled that the legal brief attached to
the prefiled direct testimony of CAPAI witness Ms.Christine Zamora should not be admitted,
and the remainder of Ms.Zamora’s testimony allowed in the record and accorded the weight it
deserves.Tr.at 30-3 1.
B.Rocky Mountain
The Company presented its witness,J.Ted Weston,Idaho Regulatory Affairs
Manager,in support of the Stipulation.Mr.Weston’s direct and rebuttal testimony,including
exhibits,was spread upon the record.Tr.at 33.Mr.Weston’s testimony provided an overview
of the Company’s 2013 alternative rate plan and an explanation of the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation,set forth in more detail above.He stated that the Notice of Intent (NOI)filed
with the Commission on March 1,2013,was made in order to comply with the Commission’s
noticing requirements and allow for the Company to file a general rate case on June 1,2013,if
the alternative rate plan discussions did not lead to an agreement by the Parties.
Mr.Weston noted that,following the settlement discussions referenced above,the
Company filed its annual Result of Operations.The Test Period for the Result of Operations was
based on the historical 12-month period ended December 31,2012,adjusted for known and
measurable changes through December 31,2013.The Result of Operations was prepared
consistent with past Commission practice and the Company’s general rate cases filed previously
in Idaho.The Company utilized rate base on an end-of-period basis,which includes the actual
rate base at December 31,2012,plus major capital additions that were expected to go into
service by December 31,2013.
The Company believes that absent a rate change the Company would earn 7.6%
return on equity (“ROE”)on a normalized basis for calendar year 2013.Based on the most
recent Commission authorized ROE of 9.9%the Company could justify a $15.7 million price
increase.Weston remarked that most of that price increase was driven by three factors.First,is
ORDER NO.32910 5
the difference between net power cost currently included in base rates and actual net power costs
approved in the Company’s 2013 ECAM filing,which is approximately $7 million on an Idaho
basis.Second,the market for renewable energy certificates (“RECs”)has drastically declined
from the level currently in rates.Idaho customers are currently receiving a $6.5 million credit
annually from REC sales,and these sales are expected to be reduced in 2013 by approximately
$6.0 million.Third,the impact of the new depreciation study’s proposed rates would increase
Idaho’s allocated depreciation expense by $4.5 million annually.
The Stipulation did not modify the ECAM’s current level of base net power costs of
$1 .385 billion on a total Company basis or REC revenues included in rates on a total Company
basis of $78.8 million (or $6,526,622 allocated to Idaho).Both amounts will remain the base for
purposes of tracking in the Company’s ECAM mechanism.The Company identified both as
major drivers of its purported revenue deficiency.
The Stipulation also did not modify the Idaho base load in the ECAM that is applied
to the net power cost differential or the load change adjustment rate (“LCAR”).As specified in
Commission Order No.32432 from Case No.PAC-E-ll-12,the 2011 load reported in the
Annual Result of Operations report will continue to be used as base load for the calculation of
the load change adjustment in the ECAM deferral.The LCAR will remain at $.5.47 per MWh.
Mr.Weston concluded his direct testimony by asserting that the two-year rate plan
demonstrates the Company’s conscious effort to control its costs,help mitigate customer impacts
and use electricity more efficiently.The Company lauded this alternative to a general rate case
through auditing,qualitative discovery,and careful negotiations.The Company supports the
Stipulation and respectfully requests that the Commission approve it as filed.
C.Commission Staff
At the technical hearing Staff presented the testimony of Randy Lobb,Utilities
Division Administrator,in support of the Stipulation.His direct and rebuttal testimony,
including exhibits,was spread upon the record.Tr.at 78.In his testimony,Mr.Lobb addressed
the complaints expressed by CAPAI regarding the negotiation of a settlement prior to a general
rate case filing by Rocky Mountain.Mr.Lobb stated that Staff supported the Stipulation because
the limited impact of the provisions of the Stipulation represented a reasonable alternative to a
general rate case filing by the Company.
ORDER NO.32910 6
He explained that Staff conducted a broad and expansive audit of the Company’s
Results of Operations to determine reasonableness,identify potential rate issues,and evaluate the
magnitude of potential adjustments.Staff also reviewed general rate cases filed by the utility in
other jurisdictions,and conducted settlement workshops wherein the Parties thoroughly
discussed and negotiated the terms of the Stipulation.Staff averred that the Stipulation is in the
best interest of customers and should be approved by the Commission.
Mr.Lobb remarked that all of the expenses proposed for recovery in rates pursuant to
the Stipulation were either already approved by the Commission for future rate recovery or are
currently being considered by the Commission in an existing case.The proposed base rate
increase of approximately $2 million (0.77%)represents the revenue requirement for the 27%of
the Populus to Terminal transmission line previously approved for rate recovery in Commission
Order No.32432.
Mr.Lobb listed the specific provisions of the Stipulation,more fully described above.
He emphasized that a full review of project costs and justification for the generating plant will be
conducted as part of the Company’s next general rate case.At that time,up to a year of actual
plant operation will be available to assess the value of the plant to Idaho customers.Any
subsequent adjustment in cost recovery can be included as an offset to costs previously tracked
through the ECAM process.
Mr.Lobb reported that the Stipulation calls for a slight shift of ECAM cost
responsibility from Monsanto and Agrium to other customer classes.The modification results in
an approximate $90,000 shift in the last six months of 2013.According to Mr.Lobb,this
becomes a non-issue when the ECAM deferral is calculated on a total Idaho basis on December
7,2013.The parties agreed that the temporary cost shift was equitable given reduced line losses
experienced by these transmission service level customers.Mr.Lobb also stated that the
Stipulation resolves a long-standing dispute between the Company and Monsanto regarding the
annual true-up of Monsanto’s interruptible credit.
Mr.Lobb next asserted that there is value in the stay-out provision prohibiting further
base rate increases until January 1,2016.He noted that the Company has current rate case
filings pending in Oregon and Washington.Mr.Lobb believes that it is in the best interest of
customers to implement a small uniform increase in revenue requirement that limits the impact
on all Company customers.
ORDER NO.32910 7
Mr.Lobb remarked that results of operations indicated the Company was preparing a
general rate case filing with an Idaho revenue requirement increase that could be greater than
$15 million,before adjustment by Staff and Intervenors.Staff determined through its audit that
even with typical rate case adjustments similar to the Staff position in the last few general rate
cases,the resulting Idaho revenue requirement would be greater than the approximate $2 million
(0.77%)increase proposed in the settlement discussions to be effective January 1,2014.Staff
also verified the revenue requirement associated with the inclusion of the remaining 27%of the
Populus to Terminal transmission line investment and evaluated the ECAM adder associated
with the Lake Side II facility.
Mr.Lobb stated that Staff ultimately determined that while a more formal filing could
have provided more information upfront for parties to evaluate,it likely would have included a
proposal and justification for a much larger increase.
The Stipulation does not directly address cost of service and rate design issues but
those issues were addressed in the Company’s 2011 general rate case,PAC-E-1 1-12,wherein the
Company agreed to make a 50%move toward cost of service over a two-year period (20 12-
20 13).Staff witness Lobb does not believe that conditions have changed significantly enough
since 2011 to warrant an adjustment of cost of service and/or rate design for such a small
uniform base rate increase (0.77%).
Mr.Lobb also testified on rebuttal in response to CAPAI’s testimony in opposition to
the Stipulation.Similar to the Company’s rebuttal testimony,Staff objected to CAPAI’s
characterization of the process leading to the Stipulation.Staff believed CAPAT had numerous
opportunities in this and other recent general rate cases,whether fully litigated or settled,to
explore the topics of the settlement or make its case directly to the Commission at hearing.Staff
noted that,like every other party in this case,CAPAI was informed of the settlement workshops,
participated fully and had more than enough time to obtain the information it needed to address
its issues.
Mr.Lobb stated that Ms.Zamora’s claims regarding an abbreviated period for
discovery are simply wrong.The Commission Staff has processed four electric utility general
rate cases since 2011.During that time period,Staff processed two Avista cases and one each
for Idaho Power and Rocky Mountain.The average discovery period in those cases was 3.6
months and Staff asked an average of 197 discovery requests.Additionally,numerous other
ORDERNO.32910 8
discovery requests were asked by other parties to the case.For the 10 rate cases processed since
2008,the average time allotted for discovery was approximately 4 months where Staff asked an
average of 147 discovery requests.CAPAI was a party in all of these cases.
According to Mr.Lobb,attempting to settle a case before non-utility parties file direct
testimony does not mean the period for discovery is significantly shorter or case review is less
rigorous.In Case No.PAC-E-l 1-12,the first settlement conference was held three months after
the Company filed its Application,and the Settlement Stipulation was filed with the Commission
13 days before original prefile was due.
Staff works very closely with CAPAI on the issues,funding levels for the Low
Income Weatherization program (LIWA)and the impact of rate structure on low-income
customers that are typically of the most concern to the organization.Without exception,CAPAI
is given the opportunity to address these issues before the Commission.Staff cited numerous
general rate cases since 2010 wherein CAPAI was able to attain value for its constituents.
Mr.Lobb remarked that Staff did not take a position in the discovery dispute between
the Company and CAPAT because it was mostly unaware of CAPAI’s request.CAPAI did not
file its production requests with the Parties.He stated that CAPAI had roughly three months
following the Stipulation to obtain information from Rocky Mountain and conduct its analysis.
Finally,he disagrees with CAPAI’s assertion that the organization is the only
advocate for low-income customers.Staff advocates on behalf of all customers,including low-
income residential customers.The Stipulation reached by the Parties achieves rate stability with
a very minimal increase over a two-year period.
D.CAPAI
CAPAI presented its witness,Christine Zamora,Executive Director of CAPAI.At
the technical hearing Ms.Zamora’s direct testimony,not including Exhibit A —Brief in Support
of Motion to Compel,’was spread upon the record.Tr.at 124.
Ms.Zamora’s chief complaint centered upon the procedure utilized in this case and
the purported impact it had on the Stipulation.CAPAI believed that the way the case was
processed negatively affected its ability to fully and effectively participate in this case.In
CAPAI’s view,the procedure in this case was “unprecedented.”CAPAI maintained that the
At the start of the technical hearing,the Commission issued a bench ruling striking the attachment of CAPAI’s
Brief in Support ofMotion to Compel from Ms.Zamora’s testimony.See supra at 5.
ORDER NO.32910 9
Company’s initial Notice did not comport with Commission rules and that CAPAT was not
included in discussions that took place before the Company’s initial filing.
These complaints relate to another general concern regarding the increased frequency
of utility general rate case filings.She stated that CAPAI has limited resources to effectively
contest these filings.She conceded that the Stipulation may or may not be a “good deal”for
customers but the process leading to the Stipulation did not allow for a comprehensive analysis.
In CAPAI’s view,no alternatives to a general rate case filing were discussed by the Parties.
A large portion of Ms.Zamora’s testimony referenced the discovery dispute between
CAPAI and the Company.The dispute was settled when the Company agreed to provide certain
usage and rate impact information and CAPAT withdrew its Motion to Compel.Ms.Zamora
made several legal conclusions in her testimony,going so far as to declare that the procedure in
this case was “unlawful.”2 Ms.Zamora cited her recent experience in Avista’s 2012 general rate
case,AVU-E-12-08,to suggest that Rocky Mountain was not as responsive to CAPAI’s
concerns as other utilities.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Based upon the record established in this case,the Commission finds that the present
rates do not provide the Company with an opportunity to earn a fair and reasonable return on its
investment.Idaho Code §6 1-122.The Commission finds that the Company’s Notice of Intent,
filed on March 1,2013,comports with the Commission’s Rule 122 notice requirements.
The Commission finds that increasing the Company’s Idaho base rates for electric
service by approximately $2 million annually will allow Rocky Mountain to earn a fair and
reasonable return.We further find that the Settlement Stipulation filed by the Parties is fair,just
and reasonable.The record presented to the Commission reflects the reality that the Company
may well have opted to file for a more substantial increase.See Tr.at 36-37,88.
The Commission believes that the value of a small,less than 1%,uniform increase for
all rate classes over a two-year period and the Company’s agreement to not file another general
rate case until May 31,2015,provides significant value for customers.In particular,it assures
multi-year rate stability and is in the public interest.
2 Upon cross-examination,Ms.Zamora recanted this assertion.See Tr.at 147;infra at 13.
ORDER NO.32910 10
The Commission also finds that the specific provision of the Parties’Stipulation
proposing the inclusion of the remaining 27%of the Populus to Terminal transmission line
investment in rates on or after January 1,2014,is fair,just and reasonable.The Parties
confirmed and memorialized what the Commission has previously deemed “plant held for future
use”in Order No.32196 and “used and useful”in Order No.32432.The Commission now
authorizes the remainder to be included in rates.
The Parties’decision to include a resource adder to the ECAM deferral calculation
for the Lake Side II generation facility and to include Monsanto and Agrium in the yearly Idaho
ECAM process is approved.The Commission finds that any shift in costs resulting from this
change from Monsanto and Agrium to other customer classes is de minimis and will not
adversely affect the rates of other rate schedules.See Tr.at 86-87.
The Commission applauds the Company and Monsanto’s steadiast efforts to reach
agreement on a new ESA.However,the Commission does not issue a specific ruling on this
issue in this Order.We reserve our approval of the substance and the relative merits of the new
Rocky Mountain-Monsanto ESA upon submission of the agreement in a separate docket.
The Commission also notes that depreciation of the Carbon Plant is an issue currently
before the Commission in Case No.PAC-E-l3-02.Notwithstanding the issues presented in that
case,the Commission approves the specific provisions of the Stipulation regarding the
Company’s Depreciation Study and Carbon Plant.The Commission authorizes Rocky Mountain
to establish a regulatory asset to allow the Company to defer any aggregate net increase or
decrease in Idaho allocated share of depreciation expense,as well as the amortization and
recovery of prudently incurred carbon removal costs.
Finally,the Commission addresses the procedural concerns expressed by CAPAI.The
Commission does not take lightly the serious allegations levied by CAPAI about the integrity of
the ratemaking process.Honest disagreement and reasonable argument are welcomed by the
Commission and can often lead to productive insight.However,the purposeful use of
inflammatory language does nothing to illuminate the issues or aid the Commission’s decision
making.
The Commission has reviewed similar procedural complaints in the past.The
procedure in this case is not unprecedented.For instance,Idaho Power’s Application,WC-E-12-
14,seeking authority to increase its rates/rate base to recover its investment in its Langley Gulch
ORDER NO.32910 11
Plant was processed via Modified Procedure.In that case,an intervenor party objected to the
process and asked the Commission to “deny this Application and schedule a general rate case to
examine rate base and revenue issues.”Order No.32585 at 13.We noted in that case that the
parties agreed during a scheduling conference “to process this case by Modified Procedure.”Id.
Further,a Notice of Modified Procedure was issued wherein the parties’agreement to process
the case via Modified Procedure was memorialized.See Order No.32523 at 1.
Similarly,in this case the Parties were given ample opportunity to file motions with
this Commission formally objecting to the procedure utilized in this case.CAPAI attended both
settlement conferences and was given considerable time to conduct discovery.See Tr.at 94.
Approximately five months elapsed between the Company’s initial Application and CAPAI’s
Motion to Compel Discovery.See Tr.at 98.
The Commission notes that CAPAI’s Motion to Compel Discovery was obviated by
the Company’s acquiescence to provide the requested discovery and CAPAI’s subsequent
decision to withdraw its Motion to Compel.See CAPAI’s Withdrawal of Motion to Compel
filed August 14,2013.However,in an effort to avoid potential discovery disputes in the future,
we remind the Parties that the kinds and scope of discovery authorized are outlined in
Commission Rule 221 and,unless otherwise provided by the rules,order or notice,governed by
the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP).See IDAPA 31.01.01.221.05.
IRCP 26(b)(1)states:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,not privileged,which is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,whether it relates
to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or
defense of any other party,including the existence,description,nature
custody,condition and location of any books,documents,or other tangible
things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter....
Implicit in Rule 26(b)(1)is the notion that a document is only discoverable if it exists.Thus,the
Parties have no legal right to compel the production of a document/report/analysis that does not
exist during the time that the discovery request remains in effect.
Finally,a technical hearing was convened to allow all of the Parties,including
CAPAI,to present evidence,direct testimony and to cross-examine witnesses.It was at the
technical hearing that CAPAI softened its rhetoric and plainly conceded that the process utilized
ORDERNO.32910 12
in this case was not unlawful.See Tr.at 147.In fact,witness Zamora explained that what she
really meant was that this process was merely “being handled in a different way.”Id.
Therefore,after reviewing the entire record in this case,including the Company’s
Application,Stipulation,witness testimony and exhibits and the technical hearing transcript,the
Commission finds that this case was conducted in accordance with the Commission’s duly
established rules and procedures.
INTERVENOR FUNDING
On September 25,2013,CAPAI filed a Petition for Intervenor Funding seeking
recovery of its attorney fees and costs in the amount of $16,050.The bulk of this amount
($15,300)was for attorney fees.On September 27,2013,Rocky Mountain filed an opposition to
CAPAI’s request for intervenor funding.In particular,Rocky Mountain objected to the funding
“associated with CAPAT’s Motion to Compel and related pleadings ...as well as costs
associated with”preparing the intervenor funding petition.Opposition at 3.On September 30,
2013,CAPAI filed an affidavit and response to Rocky Mountain’s opposition to CAPAI’s
Petition for Intervenor Funding.CAPAI generally objects to Rocky Mountain’s request for
specificity for attorney fees.It argues that Rule 162 does not require a detailed breakdown of
legal fees and providing such detailed information in the form of timesheets may violate the
attorney-client privilege and is not practical.
A.Legal Standardsfor Intervenor Funding
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code §61-617A and Commission
Rules of Procedure 161 through 165.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.”Idaho Code §61-617A(1).The statutory cap for
intervenor funding that can be awarded in any one case is $40,000.Idaho Code §61-61 7A (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....“Id.
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
ORDERNO.32910 13
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.
Commission Findings:The Commission has reviewed CAPAI’s request for
intervenor funding and Rocky Mountain’s objection.Without addressing the merits of the
funding request,the Commission finds that the request does not provide us with enough specific
information to decide whether CAPAI should be allowed to recover all of its intervenor funding.
Although we are sensitive to attorney-client communications between CAPAI and its attorney,
we find that additional detail or specificity for the recovery of attorney fees would be helpful.
Without divulging the actual communications,we direct CAPAI to indicate the amount of hours
or the percentage of hours spent on areas such as reviewing and investigating the Application,
discovery,participating in the settlement conferences,the discovery dispute (Motion to Compel),
witness/hearing preparation,the hearing,and preparing the intervenor funding petition and reply.
The Commission reserves a final ruling on the funding petition and directs CAPAI to
submit a more particularized statement of costs and fees.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND 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,IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.,including specifically Rules 272 through 280 as they
pertain to settlements.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission herein approves the terms and
conditions of the Parties’Stipulation,put forth in Case No.PAC-E-13-04,approving a two-year
rate plan resulting in an approximately $2.0 million annual increase by a uniform percentage of
0.77%in the energy rate for each schedule/class of customers.New rates will be effective on
ORDER NO.32910 14
January 1,2014.Inasmuch as the Company has submitted new tariffs reflecting the express
terms of the Stipulation approved by this Order those tariffs are approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CAPAT is directed to prepare and submit a more
itemized statement of its attorney fees within 14 days of the service date of this Order.The
Commission expressly reserves resolution of this issue until it reviews CAPAI’s supplemental
information.
THIS IS A PARTIAL FINAL ORDER.Any person aggrieved by issues decided in
this Order (other than intervenor funding)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 §
6 1-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of October 2013.
,/_,-_••
PAUL
MACK A.REDFORD,COMMISSIONER
il
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Jén D.JewelU
Commission Secretary
O:PAC-E-I 3-04_np3
PRESIDENT
ORDERNO.32910 15