20130830Lobb Rebuttal.pdf

, i-.. r' '
BEFORE THE ?il: J.lji lil [,1 .3: t_it+
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMTSSION .;-i.i'':': - , ,.
rN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
PAGIF|CORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN ) CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04
POWER TO |NTTTATE DTSCUSSIONS WITH )
INTERESTED PARTIES ON ALTERNATIVE )
RATE PLAN PROPOSALS.
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF RANDY LOBB
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
AUGUST 30, 2013
l-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
l-5
1"7
18
1,9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
a.
record.
Please state your name and business address for the
A. My name is Randy
472 West Washington Street,
O. Are you the same
submitted testj-mony in this
Lobb and my busj-ness address is
Boise, Idaho.
Randy Lobb who previously
proceeding?
A. Yes I am.
a. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony in
this proceeding?
A. The purpose of my rebuttal testimony is to address
issues raised in the direct testimony of Christina Zamora on
behalf of the Community Action Partnership Association of
Idaho (CAPAI) .
A. Would you please summarize your testimony?
A. Yes. Through the testimony of Ms. Zamora, CAPAf
unfairly blames hj-storic rate case processing and
specj-fica1Iy the processing of this case for its failure to
prevail on issues of interest or to obtain requested
information to fu1Iy vet its issues. Staff believes CAPAI
had numerous opportunities in recent general rate cases,
whether fu11y litigated or sett.Ied, to inform the terms of
the settlement or make its case directly to the Commissioners
at hearing. In t.his case, Staff maj-ntains that CAPAf had
more than enough time to obtain the informatlon it needed to
address its issues. While not supporting a rate structure
CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04B/30/t3 LOBB, R. (neb)
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
L4
15
l_5
1,7
l_8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
change in this case, Staff is willing to work with CAPAf to
evaluate low income rate issues and recommend adjustments
that will benefit 1ow income customers. However, Staff
believes that the processing of this case, given the
cj-rcumstances, is in the best interest of all customers and
did not disadvantage CAPAI.
O. On page 6 of her testimony, Ms. Zamora states that
Staff typically schedules settlement negotiations in every
case soon after the case is filed and does so without ever
contacting CAPAI. Is this true?
A. Absolutely not. Staff does not unilaterally
schedule settlement negotiations. General rate case
schedules, including settlement dates if dfly, are established
by all part.ies at a prehearing conference after the
intervention deadline has passed. CAPAI has intervened in
numerous general rate cases and participated in all
scheduling conferences .
O. On page 7 of her testimony, Ms. Zamora talks about
typical rate cases since 201,1 and how the Staff engages in
meetings with utilities before a filing. She then explains
that there j-s typj-caI1y a very abbreviated course of
discovery between Staff, the utllity and possibly a large
industrial special contract customer and then the scheduling
of settlement conferences. Is she correct?
A. No, not at all. Staff rarely meets with the
cAsE NO. PAC-E-13-04
s/30/13
LOBB, R. (Reb) 2
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
1,2
13
1"4
15
16
1,7
l_8
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
Company to discuss the contents of a rate case before the
utility makes a filing. However, Staff works with utilities
every day on a variety of issues so we are keenly aware of
what will 1ike1y be included in a rate filing. Staff has
also processed numerous general rate case filings from all of
the utilities over the last few years and has a detailed
understanding of cost drivers and issues.
With respect to abbrevj-ated course of discovery,
Ms. Zamora is simply wrong. The Commission Staff has
processed four electric utility general rate cases since
20L1,. During that time period, Staff processed two Avista
cases and one each for Idaho Power and PacifiCorp. The
average discovery period in those cases was 3.6 months and
Staf f asked an average of 1"97 discovery request,s.
Additionally, numerous other discovery requests were asked by
other parties to the case. For the ten rate cases processed
since 2008, the averag'e t,ime allotted for dj-scovery was
approximately four months where Staff asked an average of 1-47
discovery requests. CAPAI was a party in all of these cases.
a. On page 8 of her testimony, Ms. Zamora complains
that since 201-L Staff has settled rate cases before prefile
is due and before CAPAI has a chance to prepare? How do you
respond?
A. I can't respond to CAPAI's inability to prepare in
the timeframe provided. However, the maximum timeframe for
CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04
8/30/13
LOBB, R. (Reb)
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
t_0
1l_
t2
13
1,4
L5
L6
l7
l_8
79
20
2L
22
23
24
25
processing rate cases is set by statute and all avaj-Iab1e
time is used by the parties in setting the case schedule.
Staff generally believes that there is an advantage for
ratepayers if settlement occurs prior to the parties
prefiling direct testimony. Once testimony is filed, the
utility has a better understanding of how strong or weak
party positions may be and may be less inclined to reduce
revenue requirement. request than j-t would have been prior
filing. In other words, the parties can often present a
better case in settlement negotiations than can actually be
defended in prefiled direct testimony.
However, attempting to settle a case before non
utility parties file direct testimony does not mean the
period for dj-scovery is significantly shorter or case review
is less rj-gorous. fn Case No. PAC-E-L1,-12, the first
settlement conference was held three months after the Company
filed its Application, and the Settlement Stipulation was
filed with the Commissj-on thirteen days before original
prefile was due.
a. On page l-0 of her testl-mony, Ms. Zamora claims that
in numerous cases CAPAI is instruct.ed by Staff that CAPAf's
issues are of no rel-evance to them in the settlemenE process,
which results in CAPAI being shut out and marginalized. Do
you agree that this is the case?
A. No, I do not. CAPAI typically presents two main
its
to
CASE NO. PAC-E- ].3 - O4
8/30/t3
LOBB, R. (Reb)
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l_0
l-1
t2
13
l4
l-5
L6
l7
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
issues in general rate case proceedings. Those issues are
funding leveIs for the Low fncome Weatherization program and
the impact of rate st.ructure on 1ow income customers. Staff
has worked very closely with CAPAI on both of these issues to
understand what CAPAI hopes to achieve and how its positions
might be justj-fied. Moreover, CAPAI is always given the
opportunity to address these issues before the Commission.
In the fu1Iy litigated PacifiCorp rate Case No.
PAC-E-LO-7, CAPAI participated as a party and was able to
fu11y present its positions to the Commission for decision.
CAPAI addressed 1ow income weatherj-zation and opposed the
Company's proposal to increase the residential customer
charge.
In the PacifiCorp general rate Case No.
PAC-E-1-L-L2, CAPAI declined to enter into settl-ement and
inst.ead filed testimony with the Commission regarding concern
over the settlement process and the need to increase low
income weatherizatj-on funding. These issues were presented
at hearing and heard by the Commission. Although CAPAI did
not support the Stipulation, it found positive value in
preserving the five dollar monthly residential customer
charge.
In other cases such as IPC-E-11-08 and AVU-E-11-01,
CAPAI's issues were either heard by the Commission at hearing
or incorporated j-n the Settlement Stipulation. In all of
CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04
8/30/a3
LOBB, R. (Reb)
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t-3
1"4
15
1,6
1,7
18
1"9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
t.hese cases, CAPAI had the opportunity to shape the
settlement ot, alternatively, present its case directly to
the Commission.
a. CAPAI witness Zamora complaj-ns in testimony from
pages 15 through 20 about the processing of this case and the
Iack of response from Rocky Mountain in answering producti-on
requests. Could you please provide your perspective on case
processj-ng and responses to production requests?
A. Yes. As I previously explained in my direct
testimony, settlement was achieved in this case without a
traditj-onaI Company rate filing by virtue of the straight
forward settlement terms. A11 of the settlement terms have
been previously approved by the Commission, are in the
process of being determined by the Commission or will be
subject to review by the Commj-ssion in the future. Staff and
al-I other signatory parties agree that the settlement is a
reasonable alternative to a general rate case filing.
I have described the chronology of this case in my
direct testimony so I will not repeat it here. I do want to
point out that the time period between the Company's
Application to open the case and CAPAI's Motj-on to Compel
discovery was five months, from March 1, 2Ol3 to ,Ju1y 30,
20L3.
On page 1-9 of her direct testimony, Ms. Zamora asks
if Staf f took a posit.ion j-n the discovery dispute. No
CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04
8/30/13
LOBB, R. (Reb)
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
l-3
t4
15
L6
L7
18
1,9
20
21-
22
23
24
25
dj-scovery request from CAPAI to Rocky Mountain was ever filed
with the Commission. It cannot be found in any case file or
in any e-maiI to Commission Staff. To date, f have not seen
the discovery request. I did receive an e-maiI on May 31,
201-3 from CAPAI's attorney stating that Rocky Mountain
refused to respond to CAPAI's production request so CAPAI
would not sign the Settlement. Two months later, CAPAI filed
its Motion to Compel.
O. In your view, did the processing of this case
prevent CAPAI from fuII participation?
A. I do not believe that it did. CAPAI had three
months to ask, and even compel discovery if necessary, before
the Sett.lement was fi1ed. CAPAI had an additional two months
after the Settlement to obtain discovery, prepare testimony,
etc. CAPAI's traditional issue of Low Income Weatherization
funding was not reaI1y addressed by CAPAI. The only j-ssue
raised by CAPAI was rate design. It is 1ike1y CAPAI would
have been provided even less time to request, receive and
analyze rate information if the Company had made a
traditional rate filing.
Regardless of the rate change recommendations CAPAf
might have proposed, changing rate structure in this case or
a traditional case can cause substantial increases for some
customers even when the proposed overall increase is sma11.
O. Would Staff be willing to sit down with CAPAI to
CASE NO. PAC-E-13-04
8/30/1,3
LOBB, R. (neb)
STAFF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
l_3
l4
15
15
1,7
18
1,9
20
21"
22
23
24
25
analyze the various residentj-aI rate structures to determine
impact on low income customers?
A. Yes. Staff worked with CAPAI recently on
collecting and analyzing relevant customer data from Avista
and is willing to do the same with data provided by Rocky
Mountain and Idaho Power. Ms. Zamora states on page 11 of
her testimony that CAPAI is the only 1ow income residentj-aI
advocate. However, Staff advocates for low income customers
by limitlng overall rate increases and balancing rate design
for the overall benefit of all low income customers.
O. Does that conclude your rebuttal testimony in this
case?
A. Yes it does.
cAsE NO. PAC-E-13-04
8/30/13
LOBB, R. (Reb)
STAFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 3OTH DAY OF AUGUST 2013, SERVED
THE FOREGOING REBUTTAL TESTIMOI\"Y OF RANDY LOBB, IN CASE
NO. PAC-8,-13-04, BY E-MAILING AND MAILING A COPY THEREOF, POSTAGE
PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
TED WESTON
ID REGULATORY AFFAIRS MGR
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
2OI S MAIN ST STE 23OO
SALT LAKE CITY UT 8411I
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
E.MAIL ONLY:
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
datarequest@oacifi corp. com
BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES
16690 SWINGLEY RIDGE RD
#140
CHESTERFIELD MO 63017
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
ERIC L OLSEN
RACINE OLSON NYE ET AL
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204-1391
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
RONALD L WILLIAMS
WILLIAMS BRADBURY PC
IO15 W HAYS STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
E-MAIL: ONLY
TIM BULLER
PACIFICORP IDAHO INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS
AGRIUM US INCAIU-WEST INDUSTRIES
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
DANIEL E SOLANDER
REGULATORY COUNSEL
ROCKY MOLINTAIN POWER
2OI S MAIN ST STE 23OO
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84I I1
E-MAIL : [e-mail]
RANDALL C BUDGE
RACINE OLSON NYE ET AL
PO BOX 1391
POCATELLO ID 83204-1391
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
E-MAIL ONLY:
JAMES R SMITH
MONSANTO COMPANY
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
ANTHONY YANKEL
29814 LAKE ROAD
BAY VILLAGE OH 44140
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
DON SCHOENBECK
RCS INC
9OO WASHINGTON STREET
STE 780
VANCOUVER WA 98660
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
BRAD M PURDY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2019 N ITTH STREET
BOISE TD 83702
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
BENJAMIN J OTTO
ID CONSERVATION LEAGUE
7ro N 6m sr
BOISE rD $702
E-MAIL: botto@idahoconsen'ation.orU
KEN MILLER
SNAKE RTVER ALLIANCE
BOX 173I
BOISE ID 83701
E-MAIL: [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE