20130809Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF

FROM: DON HOWELL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: AUGUST 9, 2013

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO’S
MOTION TO COMPEL, CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04

On July 30, 2013, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI)
filed a Motion to Compel requesting the Commission order PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power
“to fully respond to CAPAI’s discovery previously propounded in this case.” Motion at 1. As set
out in its supporting Affidavit from counsel and its brief in support of its Motion to Compel, CAPAI
issued its initial discovery to Rocky Mountain on April 29, 2013. Aff. Exh. B. In particular,
discovery request No. 6(b) states:
6. Using [Rocky Mountain’s] low-income proxy group, and based on actual
monthly test run data as referred to in Request No. 4, please make the following
rate design model runs:

a. . . .

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 800 kWh/month, 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.

Id. On May 2, 2013, the Company’s representative indicated that answers to “Question 6 will take
some time.” Exh. C.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
On May 29, 2013, Rocky Mountain forwarded its response to CAPAI’s discovery
request 6(b). The Company’s response to request 6(b) stated:
The Company has not performed the two-tiered rate design analysis requested by
CAPAI. As specified in paragraph 18 of the [proposed] Stipulation if CAPAI is
a party to the Stipulation the Company agrees to participate in a collaborative
rate design process to evaluate alternatives.

CAPAI Exh. E.
In its brief, CAPAI observes that Commission Rule 221.03 provides that a party to
whom discovery has been propounded has 14 days to object or explain why a question cannot be
answered, and 21 days to answer. Brief at 13. CAPAI asserts that Rocky Mountain “has not yet
responded [to discovery request 6(b) that] was propounded on April 29, 2013.” Id. CAPAI states
that it has been making “a concerted effort to obtain and analyze low-income consumption data
from Idaho utilities since 2012.” Id. at 14. CAPAI maintains that “Historically, and for various
reasons including privacy concerns, utilities have not identified, gathered, or provided to CAPAI or
others certain information related to their low-income customers.” Id. CAPAI states that its goal in
obtaining this information is to obtain “empirical evidence, of how differing rate residential rate
design alternatives affect the poor.” Id.
Turning to its Motion to Compel, CAPAI asserts that PacifiCorp’s Washington utility
(Pacific Power & Light) has provided Washington’s community action agency “the very
information sought by CAPAI in this case.” Id. at 16. CAPAI maintains that the very same
PacifiCorp employee provided this information in the Washington case “has already performed the
very same model run in Washington that CAPAI seeks in Idaho.” Id. at 17.
CAPAI’S “REPLY” AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Even though Rocky Mountain’s answer to CAPAI’s Motion to Compel is not due under
the Commission’s rules until August 13, 2013,1 CAPAI filed a “reply” to Rocky Mountain’s
informal communications between the parties on August 6, 2013. CAPAI requests that the
Commission schedule an oral argument for the Motion to Compel prior to August 9, 2013, and
require Rocky Mountain to adequately answer discovery request 6(b) no later than August 13, 2013.
In the event the Commission is unable to adopt the preceding schedule, CAPAI requests that the
Commission extend the current schedule in this case by three weeks. CAPAI Reply at 11-12. In
1 Rule 57.03 (“In no event is a party entitled to more than fourteen (14) days to answer a motion. . . .”). Rocky
Mountain did file its answer to the Motion to Compel on August 8, 2013.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3
addition, CAPAI requests the Commission issue an award of sanctions as well as costs, fees and
expenses pursuant to I.R.C.P. 37(a)(4) and Chapter 7 of the Public Utilities Law. Id. at 12.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN’S ANSWER
On August 8, 2013, Rocky Mountain filed its answer to CAPAI’s Motion to Compel.
Rocky Mountain raises a number of points in its answer. More specifically, the Company indicates
that it is under “no duty or obligation to perform the study requested by CAPAI.” Response at ¶ 2.
The utility asserts that it is not in the possession or custody of such a study and reiterates that it has
not completed the requested analysis. Id. at ¶ 5. Nevertheless, “in the interest 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 study to CAPAI on or before August 12, 2013.” Id. at ¶8.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Based upon Rocky Mountain’s answer that it will provide the study requested in request
No. 6(b), Staff believes the Commission need not to take any immediate action on the Motion.
Staff has been informed by CAPAI that it is more interested in receiving the requested information
than pursuing its Motion to Compel and sanctions. However, Staff believes that CAPAI is reluctant
to withdraw its Motion until such time as it has had an opportunity to fully review Rocky
Mountain’s discovery response.
Given the existing schedule, the Commission might consider providing CAPAI with
additional time in which to review the discovery studies and prepare its direct testimony in this case.
If the Commission finds that CAPAI should be afforded additional time to file its written testimony,
the deadline for its testimony could be moved to August 23, instead of August 16. Reply testimony
would still be due on August 30, and the rest of the schedule would remain the same.
COMMISSION DECISION
What would the Commission like to do?

bls/M:PAC-E-13-04_dh