20020517IIPA Application for Funding.pdf

Eric L. Olsen ISB# 4811
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE &
BAILEY, CHARTERED
O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello, Idaho 83204-1391
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Intervenor
Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc.
RECEIVED rnFILED 0
ZnnrKAY-17 PM It: 55
- - j
Lln- D lf',--d,- I
unu TIESCOMM IssrON
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP, DBA UTAH POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY FOR APPROV AL OF ITS
PROPOSED ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES)
Case No. PAC-O2-
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION. INc.
COMES NOW the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association, Inc. ("Irrigators ), by and through
counsel of record, Eric L. Olsen, and hereby respectfully makes application to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission ("Commission ) for intervenor funding pursuant to Idaho Code g 61-617JA
and IDAPA 31.01.01.162 as follows:
(A)A summary of the expenses that the Irrigators request to recover broken down into
legal fees, witness fees and other costs and expenses is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated by reference. Itemized statements are also attached to Exhibit "A" in support of this
summary .
(B)The Irrigators' proposed findings and recommendations were set forth in the
Stipulation and in the Irrigators' closing Comments filed with the Commission in this case in
response to the Company s filings and the Commission s notices. The Irrigators' interests are
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - 1
aligned with all other customer classes in seeking to limit the Company s recovery of its claimed
excess power supply costs to only those that were prudently incurred and properly recoverable. Via
the Stipulation, the Irrigators supported the Company s net recovery of approximately 22.7 million
in excess power supply costs as reasonable and appropriate given (1) the risks of a less favorable
result in light ofthe viability of the defenses further limiting such recover, (2) the Irrigators' limited
resources in going through a full contested hearing, and (3) the status settlements reached or in
progress in other jurisdictions on this issue.The Irrigators ' consultant, Anthony Yankel
Consultant"), assisted the Irrigators in determining settlement range for Company s claimed excess
power supply costs and participated via conference call in one of the settlement conferences.
The rate spread and rate design aspects of this case were of utmost importance to the
Irrigators in that the Company proposed, among other things, a potential cost of service increase of
up to 19.34% and replacement ofthe ABC rate schedule and accompanying load control benefits.
The Irrigators had to treat the Company s Application prior to any settlement as ifit would go to
a full contested hearing and had its Consultant review the underlying data and methodology used for
the Company s proposed cost of service study. Necessarily, the Irrigators and its Consultant served
three Data Requests upon the Company for this purpose and incurred significant time in reviewing
the Company s Application to determine its merits. Via the Stipulation, the Irrigators agreed (1) to
the revision of the ABC tariff schedule to that of a firm rate and (2) to the use of a Modified Rate
Mitigation Adjustment ("RMA") feature that has the effect of making a substantial move for the
irrigation class toward perceived cost of service and redistributing the revenues to the benefit of the
other customer classes to principally mitigate the effect of Company s excess power supply costs.
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - 2
The Irrigators' Consultant worked closely with the Irrigators to evaluate the merits ofthe settlement
of this issue and also interacted with the Company and the Commission Staff in the overall
settlement process.
(C)The expenses and costs incurred by the Irrigators set forth in Exhibit A attached are
reasonable in amount and were necessarily incurred (1) in communicating with representatives of
the Company, the Commission Staff, and the Irrigators' governing board , (2) in reviewing and
evaluating the Company s Application and exhibits, conducting discovery, negotiating and drafting
the Stipulation, and preparing Comments filed on behalf of the Irrigators, and (3) in generally
participating in these proceedings before the Commission.
(D)The costs described above constitute a financial hardship for the Irrigators. The
Irrigators currently have less than $14 000 in the bank and substantial accounts payable as a result
of participation in this case and several other cases filed recently by Idaho Power and PacifiCorp.
The Irrigators are an Idaho nonprofit corporation qualified under I.R.C. g 501(c)(5) representing
farm interests in electric utility rate matters affecting farmers in southern and central Idaho. The
Irrigators rely solely upon dues and contributions voluntarily paid by members, together with
intervenor funding to support activities and participate in rate cases. Each year a mailing is sent to
approximately 7500 Idaho Irrigators (approximately two-thirds in the Idaho Power Company service
area and one-third in the Utah Power Company service area), soliciting annual dues. The Irrigators
recommend that each member make a voluntary contribution of thirty cents ($.30) per horsepower
for each pumping installation. Member contributions have been falling mainly due to the extremely
depressed agricultural economy. From member contributions the Irrigators must pay all expenses
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - 3
which generally include mailing expenses, meeting expenses and shared office space in Boise, Idaho
in addition to the expenses relating to participation in rate cases. The Executive Director, Lynn
Tominaga, is the only part-time paid employee, receiving a small retainer plus expenses for office
space, office equipment, and secretarial services. Officers and directors are elected annually and
serve without compensation.
It has been and continues to be a financial hardship for the Irrigators to fully participate in
all rate matters affecting its members. As a result of financial constraints, participation in past rate
cases has been selective and on a limited basis.
(E)The positions set forth by the Irrigators in these proceedings as set forth in (B) above
were different from the positions taken by the Company, Commission Staff and other intervenors
with regard to the length and amount of the RMA.
(F)The Irrigators' participation addressed issues of concern to the general body of users
or consumers with respect to the negotiation of the amount of excess deferred power costs and the
willingness ofthe irrigation class as a whole to make a substantial move toward the perceived cost
of service for said class and the revenue from which was used to mitigate the recovery of the excess
power supply costs for all other consumer classes.
(G)The Irrigators represent the irrigation class of customers under Schedule 10.
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the Irrigators are a qualifying
intervenor and should be entitled to an award of costs of intervention pursuant to Idaho Code g 61-
617A and IDAPA 31.01.01.162.
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INc. - 4
DATED this 17th day of May, 2002.
RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE &
BAILEY, CHARTERED
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - 5
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on the /7 Aay, 2002, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was served on the following via U ~ail:
Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Anthony J. Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, OH 44140
Randall C Budge
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey, Chtd.
O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ID 83204
James R. Smith, Senior Accounting Specialist
Monsanto Company
O. Box 816
Soda Springs, ID 83276
Tim Shurtz
411 South Main
Firth, ID 83236
Doug Larson
Vice President Regulation
PacifiCorp
201 S. Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84140
James F. Fell
Erinn Kelley-Siel
John M. Eriksson
Stoel Rives LLP
201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Conley Ward
Givens Pursley
O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
ERI
~~
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING OF
THE IDAHO IRRIGATION PUMPERS ASSOCIATION, INC. - 6
EXHIBIT A TO APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
PAC-O2-
LEGAL - ERIC L. OLSEN:
Legal Fees: 117.9 hours (fY $135-$150
(See Attachment 1 for Detail)
Costs: travel, meals, lodging and
miscellaneous expenses:
Total:
CONSULTING FEES - TONY Y ANKEL:
Consulting Fees: 152 hours (fY $100
(See Attachment B for Detail)
Costs: Travel, meals, lodging, postage
photocopies and miscellaneous expenses:
Total:
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES:
071.68
$15 200
$16 107.
$17.178.
15.200.
$32 378.
Date
01/07/02
01/10/02
01/12/02
01/30/02
01/31/02
Description
Conference regarding PacifiCorp Rate Case and effect on IIP A
Receive and review PacifiCorp new 2002 application, testimony and
exhibits; prepare file petition to intervene; telephone conference and
letter to PUC, letter to D. Larson, J. Erikson requesting service on
consultant; telephone conference with D. Larson Re: proposed
settlement conference;
Review PacifiCorp new application , testimony, exhibits.
Prepare file IIP A First Discovery Requests; telephone conference
with T. Yankel re: same.
Review Pumper s First Data Requests to UP&L and see that the
same are sent out
For Current Services Rendered
Total Current Work & Costs
Balance Due
Hours Total
1.50
1.00
1.00
673.
673.
$673.
ATTACHMENT
Date Descri tion Hours Total
01/07/02 Conference regarding PacifiCorp Rate Case and effect on IIP A
01/10/02 Receive and review PacifiCorp new 2002 application, testimony and
exhibits; prepare file petition to intervene; telephone conference and
letter to PUC, letter to D. Larson, J. Erikson requesting service on
consultant; telephone conference with D. Larson Re: proposed
settlement conference;1.50
Review PacifiCorp new application , testimony, exhibits.1.00
01/12/02
Prepare file IIP A First Discovery Requests; telephone conference 1.00
01/30/02 with T. Yankel re: same.
Review Pumper s First Data Requests to UP&L and see that the
01/31/02 same are sent out
For Current Services Rendered 673.
Total Current Work & Costs 673.
$673.
Balance Due
Date
02/01/02
02/05/02
02/06/02
02/07/02
02/08/02
02/13/02
02/15/02
02/16/02
02/18/02
02/19/02
02/20/02
02/25/02
Descri tion
Telephone conference with R. Lobb, T. Yankel re: case preparation
settlement conference, discovery requests/ strategy.
Telephone conference with T. Yankel, L. Tominaga, B. Taylor, staff
re: pre-hearing conference and settlement conference issues.
Conference re: status of Rate Case and attending or PacifiCorp
workshop on restructuring.
Lunch re: background on PacifiCorp General Rate Cases; review
Second Data Requests; e-mail and call and leave message with Tony
Yankel re: same; several telephone conferences with Tony Yankel
re: finalizing Second Data Requests.
Finalize lIP A Second Data Requests and see that same are served;
conference re: upcoming scheduling and settlement conference.
Review update letter to lIP A re: current Rate Cases before the PUC.
Telephone conference with B. Lively (PacifiCorp) re: issues for 2/19
settlement conference; conference re: upcommg scheduling
conference; Telephone conference with Lynn Tominaga re: Utah
Power Rate Case and breakfast meeting re: same.
Conference re: positions to be taken in scheduling conference in
PacifiCorp Rate Case.
Receive and review Yankel preliminary analysis of Pacificorp
scheduling and settlement conference issues; prepare position and
issues for statement for 2/18 PUC scheduling/settlement conferences;
telephone conference with B. Lively (PacifiCorp) re: issues for
settlement conference.
Conference re: PacifiCorp case and issues to be raised in
scheduling/settlement conference; travel to Boise; attend
PacifiCorp/PUC scheduling and settlement conference travel back to
Pocatello.
Review Third Data Requests prior to sending out.
Finalize Third Data Request and see that same are served; outline
draft letter to Board re: current settlement negotiations; review PAC
filing materials re: changes to COS design and other elements of the
filing
Hours Total
0.40
1.80
02/26/02
02/27/02
02/28/02
02/19/02
02/28/02
02/28/02
Continued review of PAC's filing and testimony of James Zhang;
continued drafting of status letter to lIP Board; telephone
conference with Tony Yankel re: status of case and scheduling call
in conference; conference re: same.
Telephone conference with B. Taylor re: case status and strategy,
issues and authority for settlement conference with PacifiCorp and
staff; meeting re: case analysis, settlement issues and strategy;
prepare draft letter to Board re: same; revise letter to lIP A Board;
conference re: same.
Finalize Board letter; telephone conference with Mark Michelson re:
conference call; call and leave message with Bob Lively at
PacifiCorp getting revised numbers; telephone conference with Bob
Lively re: getting revised numbers for show impact on larger
Irrigators of proposed COS redesign
For Current Services Rendered
Travel to Boise
Long Distance Telephone Expense
Long Distance Telephone Expense
Total Costs
Total Current Work & Costs
Previous Balance
Balance Due
4.40
29.90 4 096.
321.00
333.49
429.
$673.
$5.103.49
Date
03/04/02
03/05/02
03/08/02
03/11/02
03/12/02
03/13/02
03/14/02
Descri tion
Receive and review Pacificorp Schedule 10C Exhibits and
evaluation of proposed COS studies, BP A credit, rate mitigation
adjustment on rates of irrigators; telephone conference regarding
case settlement issues; Multiple telephone conferences with B.
Lively/Pacificorp, T. Yankel, IIP A Board regarding settlement issues
and negotiations.
Review spread sheet from Bob Lively regarding changes to monthly
billing comparisons for irrigators
Conference regarding monthly billing comparIson numbers;
conference with Bob Lively regarding spread sheet showing
adjustments to rates; Conference call is IIP A Board regarding same
and upcoming settlement conference
Telephone conference with Lively regarding questions about
monthly billing comparisons
Review revised monthly billing comparison numbers;
Travel to Boise to attend Settlement Conference; Attend Settlement
Conference and reach settlement regarding amount of excess power
costs to be recovered; Various telephone conferences with Tony
Yankel regarding same; Travel back to Pocatello
Conference with Tony Yankel on status of settlement conference on
Pacificorp case; Telephone conference with Bob Lively regarding
changes in interruptability rate this late in the irrigation season; E-
mail Tony Yankel regarding Pacificorp s concerns over being unable
to implement new firm power rate schedule and idea of keeping the
ABC Tariff Rates in place for 2002 irrigation season
Telephone conference with Tim Shurtz regarding status of his
intervention in the case and intent to raise motion on rate freeze
provision in earlier merger case and Pacificorp s ability to file a
general rate case
Dictate letter to IIP Board regarding status of settlement
negotiations; E-mail Bob Lively regarding monthly billing
comparIson
Review revised monthly billing comparison from Pacificorp
Revise letter to IIP Board regarding status of settlement
negotiations
Hours Total
10.
0.20
1.10
I" 1M 1-.1. r-.::::t:Jt:J.:::: J.C'...)'::::I"HI... 1 l'il:.. UL..::JUI'i. NT 1:.. l:iULJLJI:.IS.l:i o::::~ti O::::,jo:::: bl~'::J I-'.
03/18/02 Receive and review Paciticorp proposed settlement stipulationexhibits; Telephone conference with B. Lively regarding analysis of
proposed settlement in inigators rates; Review proposed stipulation
and attachments provided by Pacificorp and folWard same on toTony Yankel; Review proposed stipulation; conference regarding
revised schedule and telephone conference with Bob Lively regarding
same; Telephone conference with Tony and review schedules to
stipulation agreement; Review Tony Yankel's settlement numbers;
Telephon~ conference with Bill Taylor regarding conference on
meeting; Telephone conference with Mark Michelsen regarding the
meeting on the rate spread
03/19/02 Conference call with B. Taylor, M. Mickelson regarding proposed
settlement stipulation and exhibits with Pacificorp; Conference
regarding scheduled conference call with IIP A Board members;
Conference with DP A Executive Committee Members regarding
status of current negotiations on PacificoIp rate case 1.90
03/20/02 Travel to Boise to attend settlement conference; Attend settlement
conference with Pacificorp and staff and revise proposed stipulation;
Travel back to Pocatello
03/21/02 Conference regarding revision ofPacificorp s proposed stipulation;
Review the revised stipulation of the proposed settlement; forward
e-mails on to Tony Ywel and see that staff's proposed schedules are
faxed to Mr. Yankel; Telephone conference with Tony Yankel
regarding results of settlement conference and negotiating strategies
going forward 1.30
03/22/02 mail Dave Taylor regarding conference calI with Tony Yankel
about cas Study and IIP A's concerns; telephone conference with
Dave Taylor and Tony Yankel regarding issue with respec:t to
Irrigator's cost of SeMce study numbers; Telephone conference with
Tony Yankel regarding same
03/23/02 Receive and review staff rate spread exhibits to settlement
stipulation; Telephone conference with T. Yankel regarding
settlement "spread" issues
03/25102 Review revised monthly billing comparison provided by Paciticorp;
Forward e-mail on to Tony Yanke! for his review; Review staf'f's
proposal for the RMA spread in conjunction with PCS and its effect
on Irrigator class; E-mail Pacificorp regarding changes to its monthly
billing comparisons for Irrigators in light of staft's new proposal;
Conference regarding llPA position and settlement of the case
"n"~""'.";:' "'U'-'-'
03/26/02
03/27/02
03/28/02
03/29/02
03/05102
03/20/02
03/31/02
,"n""l"'_' U'--'U,,""'-, UUUU'-"'U
Receive and review T. YankeI analysis ofPacificorp proposed rate
spread; Review Tony Yanke!'s comments regarding size of cost
service increase and arguments to be made against the same;
Telephone conference with Tony Yankel regarding review of
comments regarding cost of service study; Telephone conference
with Mark Michelsen regarding status of rate case and fax
infonnation up to him
Review Pacificorp s proposed stipulation and exhibits; Telephone
conference with Mark Michelsen regarding status of negotiations and
set time to meet with executive board; Telephone conference with
Randy Lobb regarding status of case with Pacificorp and Irrigator's
concerns; Review notes from conversation with Randy Lobb
Participate in Paciticorp-staffNo. 3 settlement conference rcgarding
rate spread and proposed settlement stipulation and exhibits;
Participate in staff, Paciticorp. and intervenor conference call;
Prepared for meeting lIP A Executive Board; Telephone conference
with Doug Larson of Pacificorp regarding irrigator s concerns;
Conference with Mark Michelsen and Bill Taylor ofIIP A and various
telephone conferences with Tony Yankel, Bob Lively, Randy Lobb,
and various Pacificorp staff regarding rate design issues within the
irrigator class
Conference regarding status lIP A negotiations with Pacificorp;
Telephone conference with Mark Michelsen regarding status and
decision of the board on terms of stipulation; Telephone conference
with Tony Yankel regarding status ofnegotiarions and other means
of addressing the issue of hit to large irrigators; Telephone
conference with Bob Lively regarding status of inigators position
with respect to proposed stipulated settlement
For Current Services Rendered
Travel to Boise
Airfare to Boise
Long Distance Telephone Expenses
Total Costs
Total Cwrent Work & Costs
Previous Balance
Balance Due
~...w ~-'~ 0"""'"
1.10
1.30
r .t:Jo
612.
321.00
321.00
!lM
683.
295.
55,103.
Date Descri tion Hours Total
04/01/02 Call and leave message with Randy Lobb regarding lIP A position;
E-mail Bob Lively regarding same 0.20
04/02/02 Review revised stipulation; review revised schedule B amounts;
Telephone conference with Randy Lobb regarding requested
changes; Re-draft stipulation language
04/03/02 Review changes to stipulation from Bob Lively; forward same on to
Tony Yankel and review voicemail from Randy Lobb
Telephone conference with Randy Lobb regarding proposal of minor
reduction in RMA; Telephone conference with Bob Lively regarding
same and language defining large irrigator; Telephone Conference
with Mark Michelsen regarding status of settlement terms thereof;
Telephone conference with Bob Lively regarding approval of current
stipulation by lIP A; Telephone conference with Tony Y ankel
regarding terms of settlement and preparation of request for
intervenor funding 1.20
04/05/02 Review e-mail from Tony Yankel about inconsistency in schedule
94 and settlement agreement; Review revised stipulation and
accompanying schedules; E-mail Bob Lively regarding same and our
understanding of the agreement that had been reached; Review
revised schedule 94 sent from Bob Lively; Telephone conference
with Randy Lobb regarding stipulation 3.40
04/24/02 Review order regarding stipulation and hearing schedule; Organize
file and dictate letter to Board regarding status of case and upcoming
hearings 1.30
04/25/02 Telephone conference with Tony Yankel regarding whether lIP
needs to present testimony or not; Call and leave message with
Randy Lobb at PUC regarding hearings; Revise letter to lIP A Board
regarding settlement of case and commission hearings; Telephone
conference with Randy Lobb regarding status of hearings and issues
the commissioners wanted addressed 1.50
04/26/02 Telephone conference with Bob Lively at Pacificorp regarding status
of hearings
Conference with staff regarding upcoming hearings on settlement
and need to file testimony 0.20
04/29/02 E-mail Tony Yankel regarding not providing testimony and getting
information for intervenor funding request
05/01102
05/02/02
05/03/02
05/06/02
05/07/02
05/09/02
05/16/02
5/17/02
04/30/02
05/16/02
Telephone conference with Jim Fell of Stoel Rives regarding
spreading testimony on the record; Telephone conference with Tim
Shurtz regarding request for a continuance
Telephone conference with Mark Michelsen regarding upcoming
hearings on stipulation and testifying regarding lIP A's position at
Rigby Hearings
Review pre-filed testimony of Bob Lively and Randy Lobb inpreparation for technical hearing 1.
Review Petition to Intervene from Nu- West Industries, Inc.
Travel to Rigby, Idaho for initial workshop and public hearing;
Attend workshop; Conference with Mark Michelsen lIP A Board
Member regarding content of testimony; Attend public hearing;
Travel back to Pocatello 5.
Travel to Preston to attend technical hearing; Attend technical
hearing and participate therein; Travel back to Pocatello 5.
Dictate draft of comments for closing technical hearing for
consideration of stipulation; Continued drafting of comments of
lIP A regarding reasons for supporting proposed stipulation and
treatment of Nu- West in alternatives of being a tariff or contract
customer and see that same are filed with commission and served on 4.
the parties
Prepare application for intervenor funding
Continued preparation of application for intervenor funding;
Telephone conference with Lynn T ominaga regarding same and see
that same is filed with commission
For Current Services Rendered
35.00 4 725.
Long Distance Telephone Expense
Mileage to Preston
Total Costs
Total Current Work & Costs
Previous Balance
Balance Due
12.
42.
54.35
779.35
$12 399.
$17.178.
ATTACHMENT 2
Nov.
Jan-02 10
Feb.
Date Hours
PacifiCorp BP A/COSIDeferred Power Costs
Description
Review material supplied by legal counsel from meeting to outline
PacifiCorp s rate new case.
Review material from prior UP&L rate cases to determine how net
power costs were previously addressed.
Review treatment of net power costs in last Utah case and compare
differences between the two cases.
Review of Company filing as well as other materials filed by
PacifiCorp; conversation with legal counsel regarding direction of
case.
Review cost of service and power cost issues in filing in relationship
to other PacifiCorp cases in Utah and Oregon.
Review testimony of Watters as well as accompanying exhibits;
develop interrogatories regarding same.
Continued review of testimony of Watters and review of testimony of
Widmer as well as accompanying exhibits; compare to last filing in
Utah; develop interrogatories regarding service.
Continued review of testimony of Watters and Widmer as well as
accompanying exhibits; continued comparison to last filing in Utah
and Oregon; continued development of interrogatories regarding
same.
Review testimony of Taylor and the Company s cost of service study;
compare to the cost of service study filed in the last case in Utah;
develop interrogatories regarding same.
Continued review oftestimony of Taylor and the Company s cost of
service study; continued comparison to the cost of service study filed
in the last case in Utah; continued development of interrogatories
regarding same.
Review cost of service data and develop cost of service study
alternatives that are different than PacifiCorp , focusing on system
coincident demand and power supply cost data.
Mar.
Date Hours
PacifiCorp BP A/COSIDeferred Power Costs
Descri tion
Continued review of cost of service data and development of cost of
service study alternatives that are different than PacifCorp' s focusing
on non-coincident demand and distribution data.
Operate PacifiCorp s cost of service study computer model and
determine how it works.
Review the basis for allocation factors used in the Company s COS
study including the development of coincident peak data and
distribution peak data from the Company s load research data.
Continued review of the basis for allocation factors used in the
Company s COS study including the development of coincident peak
data and distribution peak data from the Company s load research
data.
Continued review of the basis for allocation factors used in the
Company s COS study including the development of coincident peak
data and distribution peak data; compare to results in Utah and note
differences including the use of different times of system coincident
peak for the same month.
Review Company s filing and develop interrogatories regarding cost
of service issues.
Continued reVIew of Company s filing and development of
interrogatories regarding cost of service issues, noting in particular
differences with the filing in the last case.
Review COS data to determine problem areas In the model; attempt
to develop alternative to these problems.
Develop direction for legal counsel regarding settlement; determine
how PacifiCorp s Exhibit 17 works with respect to how the various
charges are related and discuss with legal counsel.
Review cost of service and direction for settlement; conference with
legal counsel and IIP A Board regarding what needs to be done at
settlement.
Date Hours
PacifiCorp BP A/COSIDeferred Power Costs
Description
Review various materials supplied by the Company and staff
regarding settlement; prepare for and attend settlement conference
over the phone.
Review data responses to Irrigators and Staff regarding cost of service
issues and Power Cost issues.
Review load research data as it relates to changed usage in this case;
review basis for energy and revenue values in this case that are
significantly higher than anything for irrigators in Idaho in the last 10
years.
Continued review ofload research data; continued review of basis for
energy and revenue values in this case that are significantly higher
than anything for irrigators in Idaho in the last 10 years; continued
formulation of position for settlement.
Continued review ofload research data; continued review of basis for
energy and revenue values in this case that are significantly higher
than anything for irrigators in Idaho in the last 10 years; continued
formulation of a position for settlement.
Various conversations with legal counsel regarding settlement and
review of materials supplied by PacifiCorp regarding settlement.
Conversations with legal counsel, review latest proposals with respect
to settlement for the impact on irrigation and other customers.
Various conversations with legal counsel, Dave Taylor of the
company, and Randy Lobb of the Staff; review new data spreadsheet
provided by the Company.
Conversation with legal counsel; review most recent staff proposed
settlement.
Review material supplied by the company in response to our concerns
regarding cost of service; develop a listing of cost of service issues
based on what was filed in this case and what the Company has
recently filed in Utah for the irrigators; prepare a position for
negotiations, conference call with legal counsel and Company.
April
Date Hours
Total 152
PacifiCorp BP A/COS/Deferred Power Costs
Description
Meeting with Dave Taylor in Salt Lake to discuss various positions
in the case and how to settle the case.
Develop possible compromises based upon conversations with
Taylor; conversation with legal counsel and IIP A Board members
regarding possible compromise position.
Conversation with legal counsel regarding direction of settlement;
review of settlement proposal and possible spread scenarios of COS
and RMA.
/'"
- (31S
Honorable Commissions:
RECEtVEft mFilED
lnOZMAY 11 Pt1 3:a.O
IOt\HO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
O. Box 83720.
Boise, ID 83720-007
Intervener, Timothy 1. Shurtz, respectfully requests reimbersment and compensation for the
intef'/ention activities in Case No. PAC-02-, under provisions ofIDAPA 31.01.01, under
commission rules of procedure 161-170.
Rule procedure 162.01.Itemized list of expenses in Case PAC-02-
List of Time and Activities Involved with Case P AC-02-
February 19 2002 16 hours Pre-Conference Hearing and Negociations.
February 25, 2002 5 hours Met with Kathaleen Lewis, Executive Director of South
East Idaho Council of Governments.
February 25, 2002 5 hour Talked with Commission Staff, Ron Law.
February 25, 2002 1 hour Discussed ramifications of case with the Firth City
Council.
February 26 2002 5 hour Talked with Commission Staff, Ron Law.
Phone #Phone #
Fax #Fax #
March 4&5, 2002 1 hour Worked witq Scott Woodbury.
March 8, 2002 5 hours Studied PacifiCorp documents provided by Douglas
Larson, V.P. Regulation of Utah Power.
March 11 , 2002 5 hour Talked with Commission Staff, Ron Law.
March 11 , 2002 4 hours Made inquiry for legal services.
March 12, 2002 2 hours Had initial consultation with Alva Harris, attorney.
March 13 2002 1 hour Talked with Jeanine Brandies, AARP for possible help on
case.
March 13 , 2002 2hours Studied merger Case No. PAC-99-
March 14 2002 3 hours Prepared information on case for AARP national office.
March 15 2002 6 hours Preparation of Petition of Clarification and consultation
with lawyer on petition.
March 18, 2002 5 hour Consultation with Commission Staff, Ron Law and Scott
Woodbury.
March 18, 2002 4 hours Preparation of Final Petition of Clarification and made
copies for all parties.
March 19 2002 14 hours Settlement Conference at Idaho Public Utilities
Commission office in Boise.
March 19 2002 5 hours Met with Jeanine Brandeis, AARP acking for assIstance in
this case.
March 25 2002 5 hours Traveled to and ITom Pocatello; met with Senator Mike
Crapo s Aide.
March 26, 2002 5 hours Received Draft #2 of proposed stipulation; studied and
consulted with all parties (conference call).
April 12, 2002 4 hour Studied Proposed Final Stipulation.
April 12 2002 1 hour Met with Gilbert Dayley and discussed internet research
information dealing with historical facts in this case.
April 15, 2002 1 hour Talked with Bob Lively, Utah Power.
April 16, 2002 75 hour Talked with Commission Staff; Randy Lobe and Ron Law.
April 16, 2002 5 hour Talked with NuWest; stipulation.
April 17 2002 .5 hour Talked with Bob Le~.
April 18, 2002 5 hour Talked with Congress Mike Simpson s staff.
April 18, 2002 5 hour Talked with Northwest Industrial's staff
April 18, 2002 5 hour Talked Energy Strategies, Utah.
April 18, 2002 1 hour Talked with Michael Carp, energy advocate on utility
case.
April 18, 2002 5 hour Talked with Wes Clinton of Utah Farm Bureau.
April 19 2002 75 hour Talked with Lyn Tominaga ofIdaho Farm Bureau.
April 19, 2002 1 hour Talked with Tim Summer of Wyoming AARP; re:
Wyoming case.
April 19 2002 2 hours Researched Oregon case on internet; UM 855.
April 19 2002 5 hours Met with Gilbert Dayley and Alva Harris; discussed case
reviewed information, and prepared for hearings.
April 23 , 2002 5 hour Talked with Representative Lindford.
April 23 , 2002 3 hours Prepared and gave presentation to South East Idaho
Council of Governments.
April 24 & 25, 2002 1 hour.Drafted and faxed Request for Contmuation to all parties.
April 26, 2002 5 hours Studied Wyoming Case information from Tim Summer
AARP and internet.
April 29, 2002 5 hour NuWest Stipulation.
April 30, 2002 9 hours Prepared and composed Written Testimony of Timothy
Shurtz for the Evidentiary Hearing.
April 30, 2002 5 hour Talked with Ron Law and Scott Woodbury.
April 30, 2002 5 hour Faxed lawyer s request for continuance.
May 1 , 2002 5 hour Talked with Commission Staff; Ron Law &Scott
Woodbury.
May 1 2002 3.5 hours Studied testimony and exhibits by PacifiCorp.
May 2, 2002 5 hours Copied, prepared, and mailed testimony to all parties.
May 2, 2002 5 hours Studied and researched testimony given for New West by
Conley E. Ward; and Commission Staff testimony of
Randy Lobe.
May 2, 2002 1.5 hours Talked with Stan Searle, Bingham County Farm Bureau
President.
May 2, 2002 5 hour Talked with Commission Staff, Ron Law and Scott
Woodbury.
May 3 2002 5 hour Talked with Bob Lee and Mrs. Lee.
May 3 2002 75 hour Talked with Lyn Tominaga ofFann Bureau re: testimony.
May 6, 2002 5 hours Prepared research and strategies for Public Heanng in
Rigby, Idaho.
May 6, 2002 6 hours Traveled to and from Rigby; and participation in Public
Hearing.
May 7, 2002 14 hours Traveling to and from Preston; participation in Evidentiary
Hearing and public Hearing.
152 hours Total
Record of Miles
1070
168
243
1601
(2) trips to Boise: Pre-Conference Hearing and Negociations, /Meridian-AARP.
(2) trips to Pocatello: SEICG, and Senator Crapo s office.
(6) trips to Shelley: consult with lawyer.
(1) trip to Rigby: Public Hearing.
(1) trip to Preston: EvidentureylPublic Hearing.
Total miles (fY 366/mile, $585.00.
Record of Meals
February $11.60 wltip Boise Ihop
March $12.10 wltip Boise Perkins
May $32.00 wltip Preston (2) meals
$55.Total
Mail Expense: $24.
Telephone Expenses: 11.75 hours
~ .
04/minute, $28.20.
Time 152 Hours ~ $40.00/hour, $6080.
Legal Expenses to Attorney Alva Harris
171 S. Emerson Ave.
Shelley, ill 83274
20 hours (fY $ 125.00/hour, $2500.00.
Expenses for Assistant Services to Gilbert Dayley
264 N. 4000E.
Rigby, ill 83442
- ,
15 Hours (fY 40.00/hour, $600.00.
Expenses for clerical assistance to Marlene Shurtz
411 S. Main
Firth, ill 83236
Preparation of Intervener document for Intervener Funding.
12 Hours (fY 25.00/hour, $300.00.
Total reimbersment request $10 173.89.
Note: Honorable Commission, these expenses are the only ones connected directly to the case.
They do not include many hours dealing with public information and notification of the proposed
cost recovery by Utah Power. They do not include time spent working with legislators and other
government leaders on a one to one basis. I have submitted this list of expenses trusting on your
judgement as to what renumeration I and my staff should receive. I would make one request
though that the charges concerning Mr. Gilbert Dayley and Mr. Alva Harris be honored before
any renumeration to myself that in your judgement I may be entitled.
162.02 Statement of Proposed Findings.
I feel that all expenses and charges in 162.01 are just in cost. I request that the Commission pay
the total of$1O 173.89; for intervention in Case PAC-02-
162.03 Statement Showing Cost.
I base these charges on previous intervener charges that have been submitted to the Commission.
These costs included IRS allowances for milage, cost per minute from a phone card, and
recommendation from Commission Staff. Other advocacy groups recommended a much higher
rate. I feel the advise given to me by Commission Staff is fair and reasonable.
162.04 Explanation of Cost Statement.
Intervener Timothy J. Shurtz, earned a total of $32 000 in the year 2001 before standard
. deductions. This case put a hardship on my availability to work. I have had one day off since
entering this case in which I was working either at my place of employment or working on this
case. I have also had to give up family time and forgo other activities to meet the demands of this
case. This case at times has been very stressful and challenging in all aspects of my personal and
public life. It also has caused strain at work trying to balance the needs of this case and the needs
of my profession. For these reasons, I feel fully justified in the charges I have submitted to the
Commission.
162.05 Statement of Difference.
I differed from the Staff based on my opinion and other opinions expressed in Utah Power
recovery of cost request. I felt that Condition #2 of the Merger Agreement prohibited the
Recovery Cost. I also felt that the Hunter Outage was the responsibility of the company. As
testified, I feel that this Cost Recovery was piece mill rate making, and that before Utah Power
recovered any money they should file a General Rate Case before the commission verses the piece
mill approach. For those reasons, I declined to sign the stipulation as signed by the commission
staff.
162.06 Statement of Recommendation.
As made clear to the Commission at the hearings, most customers of Utah Power felt that the
Recovery of Costs as proposed by Utah Power were unjust. Most of the customers who testified
at the hearings felt that Utah Power had broken their promise given in writing in condition #2 in
the Merger Agreement, and other verbal promises given to them personally and through the
media. The customers felt this Recovery of Costs was a retroactive rate increase. Another
concern was: should the customer pay for the management mistakes of the new management at
PacifiCorp. They felt that none of these charges were just or fair. I felt that my participation as
an intervener brought all these concerns to the attention of the commission, and that without my
participation, the public would have remained largely uninformed and would nothave participated
in this case. As stated in my testimony, my recommendation to the commission would be to deny
recovery of costs to Utah Power based on the public s perception of the rate moratorium and
verbal promises given to Senator Lee and promises made through the media to the public. Also if
in the commissions opinion, Utah Power is entitled to some recovery of costs, it should be
decided by a general rate case and not this piece mill rate making.
162.07 Statement Showing Class of Customer.
Based on the public hearings, I felt that I represented a very wide class of customers: residential
business, and farming. I was the only intervener that was a residential customer, and worked for a
business that would have been effected. I involved the Farm Bureau in this case thanks to the
help of Representative Ulea Lea Lindford. I helped inform the public through many hours of
. work with the media. I involved members of the Idaho legislature in the public hearings. With
the public response to my efforts, I felt that I represented the average customer of Utah power.
was responsible for notifying Nu West of the potential liabilities in this case. As I did many other
businesses, local governments, and residential customers who would have been unaware of their
potential liabilities in this case.
Conclusion:
, -
While this case was very stressful and demanding of me and my family, I am honored to have had
the privilege of working with all the individuals involved in this case. I found the representatives
for Utah Power to be honorable and good men. I also enjoyed working with the other interveners
in this case. But most of all, I must praise the work and concern that the Commission Staff put
forward in my behalf, specifically: Ron Law, Scott Woodbury, Randy Lobe, Jean D. Jewell, and
the other secretarial staff These are outstanding examples of what state employees should be.
also wish to thank each of you commissioners personally for the work you do every day on behalf
of the people ofIdaho. I am honored to have had the privilege of associating with you. I look
forward to working with you for the good of Idaho in the future. I respectfully submit this
application for intervener funds, knowing that you will base your decisions on what is reasonable
and fair for the intervener cost.
Sincerely,
~~.
Timothy J. Shurtz
411 S. Main
Firth, ill 83236
Certificate of Service
cc:Doug Larson
Vice president Regulation
Pacificorp
210 S Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84140
John Eriksson
Stoel Rives LIp
201 S Main St. Ste 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Randall C Budge
Rancine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey
PO Box 1391
Pocatello, ill 83204-1391
James R Smith
Monsanto Company
PO Box 816
Soda Springs, ill 83276
Eric L Olsen
Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey
PO Box 1391
Pocatello, ill 83204-1391
Conley Ward
277 North 6th Street, suite 200
PO Box 2720
Boise, ill 83701
May 13 , 2002
Time & expense report for assisting Mr. Tim Shurtz, intervener, with Case
No. PAC - 02-
Expenses for: Gilbert Dayley
Date: April 19, 2002 0 hours research internet information
April 23 , 2002 0 hours meeting with attorney
eta!. discuss and draft notice
May 2, 2002 0 hours notice of meeting and info to
Rigby senior citizens
May 6, 2002 0 hours research, develop strategies
Total 15.0 hours ~ $40.00 = $600.
~:m
Gilbert Dayley
264 North 4000 East
Rigby, Idaho 83442