20050729Application for intervenor funding.pdf

r" (; r~ I \I
- ,"- ..
1 "if
"."
!x!
~._,
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
~y(fYhotmail. com
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
it.
100S JUt 29 Pr1 t:
iD 110 F'UBLiC
!Jf IL If IE S COt"1r1 f5S IO~i
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
ACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER & LIGHT
COMP ANY FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES
TO ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
CASE NO. PAC-05-
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIA-
TION OF IDAHO'
PETITION FOR INTER-
VENOR FUNDING
COMES NOW, petitioner Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho
(CAP AI) and, pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the
Commission s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01 , petitions this Commission for an
award of intervenor funding.
Rule 162 Requirements
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commission s Rules of Procedure, an
itemized list of all expenses incurred by CAP AI in this proceeding is attached hereto as
Exhibit "
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
CAP AI's proposed fmdings are set forth in the settlement agreement executed by
all parties to this proceeding and which this Commission ultimately approved. Though
the settlement was executed prior to filing direct testimony, CAP AI , through extensive
negotiations with PacifiCorp, addressed issues of importance to the general body of
PacifiCorp s ratepayers, including the Company s overall proposed rate increase and the
impact it would have on its low-income customers.
As the settlement agreement reflects, CAP AI proposed an increase in the total
annual funding level ofPacifiCorp s low-income weatherization program by 300%.
addition, PacifiCorp agreed to adopt u.s. Department of Energy standards for energy
efficiency rather than insisting upon its own standards. This change brings the Company
into line with Idaho Power and A vista and facilitates the work of the community action
agencies. PacifiCorp also agreed to reimburse low-income customers for 50% of
refrigerators and compact fluorescent light bulbs. CAP AI's proposed fmdings are that
the Commission adopt these changes.
It is fair to say that CAP AI's efforts and proposed fmdings in this case were quite
similar to those in the Idaho Power and A vista general rate cases, both for which this
Commission awarded intervenor funding. As in the A vista case, CAP AI was able to
settle all issues prior to hearing.
PacifiCorp did not propose changes to its low-income weatherization program in
its direct case. Because of its involvement in this case and negotiations with PacifiCorp,
the company agreed to implement CAPAI's proposed changes to the low-income
weatherization program as set forth in the settlement. Were it not for the involvement of
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
and negotiations by CAP AI, therefore, these changes would not have been agreed to for
consideration by this Commission.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a statement showing the costs incurred by
CAP AI in this proceeding. CAP AI submits that the costs and fees incurred are
reasonable. Because of the speed at which this case was settled, CAP AI's costs are
considerably less in this proceeding than in Idaho Power, Avista s and United Water
general rate cases. For example, they are rougWy one-half of the costs incurred in the
A vista general rate case, though both resulted in a similar settlement agreement.
CAP AI did not retain an expert witness in this case, but relied upon the expertise
it has acquired in recent cases and, primarily, on its legal counsel for negotiation and
consultation purposes. CAP AI is on an extremely limited budget and, by necessity, must
minimize its costs to the greatest extent possible.
(04) Explanation of Cost Statement
CAP AI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the
causes and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho. CAP AI's funding for any given
effort might come from a different variety of sources, including governmental. Many of
those funding sources, however, are unpredictable. Some contain conditions or
limitations on the scope and nature of work eligible for funding. The cost to CAP AI
participating in this proceeding constitutes a significant fmancial hardship.
This Commission has been extremely accommodating to CAP AI's regular
involvement in significant proceedings such as this, and the Commission has awarded
CAP AI its reasonable costs in past rate cases. If it were not for this fact, CAP AI would
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
simply not be able to afford to participate and advance the interests of not only low-
income ratepayers, but all ratepayers. In spite of the Commission s honorable decisions
there is never a guarantee that CAP AI will recover the costs it incurs in these
proceedings. Furthermore, even if the Commission does ultimately award full recovery
through intervenor funding, CAP AI must pay its costs as it goes. This is a tremendous
struggle, in terms of cash- flow, for non-profits organizations, such as CAP AI, who
operate on unpredictable and limited budgets.
No other intervenor in this proceeding represented, exclusively, the interests of
the residential class, particularly the low-income sector of that class. CAP AI raised
issues, and represented the interests of, the general body ofPacifiCorp s ratepayers. For
example, the low-income weatherization program for which CAP AI seeks increased
funding reduces the consumption of electricity during PacifiCorp s summer peak season
helping to defer the acquisition of marginally-priced resources and provides other
system-wide benefits including the reduction of bad debt and arrearages.
(05) Statement of Difference
Unlike the Idaho Power, Avista and United Water general rate cases, Staff was
not involved at all in the negotiations between CAPAI and PacifiCorp. There was no
deliberate design accounting for this, other than the fact that Staff has demonstrated a
preference to allow CAP AI to make specific proposals and fight for them on its own
without intervention other than to opine, after the fact, whether CAP AI's position, falls
within a range of reasonableness. Thus, it is fair to say that where CAP AI takes specific
positions on issues that Staff does not address in detail, there are significant differences
between CAP AI and Staff for purposes of intervenor funding requests.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
(06) Statement of Recommendation
CAP AI's participation in this case addressed issues of concern to the general body
of ratepayers. The problems facing PacifiCorp s low-income customers are societal
problems that affect us all. Those problems, if not addressed, adversely affect all utility
ratepayers in the form of increased collection and associated costs as well as the write-off
of uncollectible accounts. These are costs that are passed on to all ratepayers. Iflow-
income customers are enabled to lower their electric bills through a Company-funded
weatherization program, this decreases the likelihood that they will be unable to pay their
bills and, consequently, the Company avoids incurring the aforementioned costs.
Furthermore, because the low-income weatherization program is a DSM program,
it represents a resource to the Company. It is in the best interests ofPacifiCorp
ratepayers for the Company to have a healthy diversity of resources. By promoting the
conservation of electricity consumption, the Company is able to defer the acquisition of
new, marginally higher cost, resources.
This case is quite unique in comparison to past general rate cases. In both the
Avista and United Water cases, CAP AI was able to reach a settlement with the utilities
that was put before and approved by the Commission at hearing. In this case, CAP AI
was aware that settlement negotiations were pending between PacifiCorp and certain
other parties months ago. Because the substance of those negotiations did not appear
relevant to CAP AI's issues, and because CAP AI was independently negotiating with the
Company, joinder in those other negotiations would have resulted in unnecessary costs
for CAPAI.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Once CAP AI learned that PacifiCorp intended to reach settlement on all issues in
the case, CAP AI accelerated the pace of its negotiations with the Company and reached
an agreement in time to become a signatory to the global settlement. CAPAI was
informed that the Commission would reschedule the original pre file and hearing dates
and, ultimately, schedule the hearing for the purpose of addressing the settlement.
order to minimize costs, and because it intended at participate in the hearing and testify in
support of the settlement, CAP AI did not prefile any testimony regarding the settlement
which it obviously supported as evidenced by its execution of the document and which it
would justify at hearing. It was only after the prefile deadline for direct testimony was
cancelled, did CAP AI learn that the Commission would not conduct a hearing after all.
CAP AI points this out simply to establish that it did everYthing in its power to
minimize costs, while leveraging its position in the interests of all ratepayers.
Consequently, though a hearing was never conducted, CAP AI's participation in
this case contributed materially toward shaping the scope, and focus of the issues and
evidence presented to the Commission and, thus, the ultimate outcome of this proceeding,
by offering a perspective not offered by any other party.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAP AI represented a specific PacifiCorp customer class, it is
the residential class.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, this 29th day of July, 2005.
Brad M. Purdy -
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 21 day of July, 2005 , I caused to be served the
foregoing PETITION TO INTERVENE OF COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP
ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO on the following, by fIrst class mail, postage prepaid, in
Case No. P AC-05-
James M. VanNostrand
Stoel Rives, LLP
900 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 2600
Portland, Oregon 97204
John Stewart
PacifiCorp
201 S. Main St., Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84140
Scott Woodbury
Kira Pfisterer
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
Randall C. Budge
O. Box 1391; 201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID. 83204-1391
James R. Smith
Monsanto Co.
Highway 34 North
O. Box 816
Soda Springs, ID 83276
Eric L. Olsen
201 E. Center
O. Box 1391
Pocatello, ID 1391
Anthony Yanke
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village, OH 44140
Conley E. Ward
601 W. Bannock St.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
O. Box 2720
Boise, ID 83720
Dennis E. Peseau
1500 Liberty St., SE, Suite 250
Salem, OR 97302
R. Scott Pasley
999 Main St.
O. Box 27
Boise, ID 83707
David Hawk
999 Main St.
O. Box 27
Boise, ID 83707
Timothy Shurtz
411 S. Main
Firth, ID 83236
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
EXHmIT "
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies
Telephone conferencing costs
Postage
Total Costs
$36.
$21.63
$15.
$73.
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy 50.70 hours ~ $120.00/hr) $6 084.
Total Fees $6,084.
Total Expenses $6,157.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING