20101221Post-hearing Brief.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
BarNo. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise,ID. 83702
(208) 384M 1299 (Land)
(208) 384M8511 (Fax)
o~ 2: 23
i\lß OEC 2. \ l ¡ \
Attorney for Petitioner
Communty Action Parership
Association of Idaho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
IN THE MATTR OF TH APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNAI
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHAGES TO
ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
)
) CASE NO. PAC-E-IO-07
)
) COMMTY ACTION
) PARTNRSHIP ASSOCIA-
) nON'S POSTMHEARG
) BRIF
)
)
COMES NOW, the Communty Action Parership Association ofIdao ("CAP Al') and
pursuant to verbal ruing issued by the Commission from the bench on December 2,2010 in the
above-captioned action, submits its post-heang brief.
I. INRODUCTION
Rocky Mounta Power Company ("Rocky Mounta" or "Company") filed its
application, testimonies and exhbits in ths case on May 28,2010. The Company did not
address a single low-income-specific matter in its direct case. In fact, the words "low-income"
or any substitute thereof, were not even mentioned anywhere in Rocky Mountan's direct filing
and the Company only addrssed low-income issues though the cursory rebutt of a single
witness with no relevant exhbits. As explained below, ths fact is ultimately the reason for
CAPAI's request to file a post-heang brief.
1
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
Though CAP AI addressed a number and varety of issues thoughout ths case, the
scope of this brief is limted to Rocky Mounta's Low-Income Weatheriation Assistace
(LIW A) program.
II. ARGUMNT
A. Procedural Backgound
CAP AI ha been a reguar intervenor on behalf of low-income utilty customers before
this Commission since the tu of ths centu. Durg that time, CAP AI has intervened in
numerous proceedings involvig, among others, Rocky Mounta Idao Power, and A VISTA.
CAP AI intervenes in nearly every electrc utilty genera rate case in order to, among other
thngs, make proposals regarding those utilties' low-income weatherition assistce
("LIW A") progrs. Consequently, Rocky Mounta is keenly aware of CAP AI's mission, the
typs of proceedings it intervenes in and for what purses, and the high likelihood tht it will
intervene in every electrc utilty general rate case.
Relevant to ths case is Case No. P AC-E-06-10 in which a settement agreement was
reached, a result of which was tht CAPAI would not propose any chages to Rocky Mountain's
LIW A program for a period of two year, (commonly referred to as a "stay-out") for the purose
of addressing LIW A for a period of roughly two years from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2009.
This was obviously a settlement term sought by Rocky Mounta and CAP AI duly adered to
this provision.
Furermore, unike certn other DSM progras, LIW A is fuded thugh general rates
and is tyically not subject to occasional DSM tarff rider filings. Ths is why LIW A fuding is
usualy addressed durng the coure of genera rate cases and in no other proceedig. Because
the 2007 stay-out ha expired and the Company's LIWA fudig ha not chaged since July,
2
CAP AI POST-HEARG BRIEF
2005, i it should have seemed a virl certty to the Company tht CAP AI would intervene in
this case to address LIWA. In spite of that virt certty, Rocky Mountain chose to not even
mention its low-income customers, let alone propose modifications to LIW A or explain why it is
not doing so.
Finally, Rocky Mounta, along with the Commssion and many others, have been made
aware, through the many efforts underten by CAP AI, the Commssion Sta, and the
Commission itself though mean such as the multi-utilty, low-income proceeding conducted
severa years ago in which Rocky Mounta was a parcipant along with all of Idao's electrc
utilities, of the disparty between the need ofIdaho's low-income utilty customers and resources
available to meet that need, which has only worsened in the past few years as the entie nation's
economy has strggled.
Because of Rocky Mounta's choice to omit addressing LIWA, CAPAI effectively
cared the burden of raising any and all LIW A-related issues and proposing modifications to that
program. Whle it is not terrbly uncommon for non-utilty paries to rase issues not addrssed
by the utilty in a general rate case, it is peculiar for Rocky Mountan, under the circumstaces
just outlined, to not have even mentioned its LIW A progr in ths case. Regardless, it has
created unque problems for CAP AI in ths case under the Commssion's procedure which is
premised on the notion that the utilty cares the burden of proof in every aspect in a general rate
case and, consequently, it is alost always given the final word though a rebuttal case. Though
ths Commssion ha, on occasion, allowed what has been called "surebuttl," such a procedural
mechansm has usualy been reserved for highy unusua circumstaces.
CAP AI respectfuly submits that, even though Rocky Mountain had no legal obligation to
address LIW A in ths case, had the Company at the very least responded to CAP AI's diect case
i when the Commssion issued Order No. 29833 in ca No. PAC-E-05-1
3
CAPAI POSTMHEARG BRIF
in a more thorough and fortght maner, both before and durg hearg in ths matter, the
issues raised in ths brief might not have arsen. Ths will be explained below.
CAP AI chose not to seek special dispensation in ths proceeding to alter the scheduling
adopted by the Commssion in order to fie surebutt or seek special treatment such as the
separate heang aforded the Monsanto special contrct issue. Instead, CAP AI moved forward
with the belief that Rocky Mountan would thoroughy address the LIWA-related issues raised
by CAP AI. Even if the Company did not necessaly agree with any aspect of CAP AI's case, the
point is tht CAP AI trsted the Company to at least mae a good faith response. In CAP AI's
opinon, ths did not occur. As discussed below, the only response to CAPAI's position was the
highly abbreviated rebutt testimony of Ms. Barbar Coughin who did not file direct testimony.
Ms. Coughin, whom other Company witnesses deferred to for all LIW A-related questions, holds
the position of "Director, Customer, Reguatory Liason." Testimony B.Coughlin, p. 1.
B. Burden of Proof
If the Commssion finds that as a legal matter Rocky Mounta cared the burden of
proof on the LIW A-related issues raised by CAP AI, the Company clearly failed to do so. The
Company put its entire case on though the rebutt testimony of Ms. Coughlin. Ths is the first
time that CAP AI knew exactly what Rocky Mountan's position on LIW A was and the evidence,
or lack thereof, supporting that position. Even a curory reading of Ms. Coughin's testimony
reveals tht it simply challenges the issues rased and points made by CAPAI's witness, Teri
Ottns though two highy specious points.
As stated, Ms. Coughin's rebuttal testimony was quite spa and without supporting
exhbits. Ony 2 of Ms. Coughin's 26 pages of rebutt testiony were related to LIWA. Ony
8 substative lines were even remotely related to LlW A fuding. Ms. Coughin confired this
4
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
fact herself durng cross-examation. See, Tr. p. 1069, Ins. 19-24. Interestingly, Rocky
Mountain President Richard Walje identified Ms. Hunter as the Company witness with
knowledge how Rocky Mounta's LIWA fuding compares to other utilties such as AVISTA,
but Ms. Hunte did not fie testimony on ths issue. Both she and the Company's legal counsel
successfuly deferred questions in ths area to Ms. Coughin. See, e.g., Tr. p. 203, In. 2. As shown
below, Ms. Coughin's testimony, devoid of relevant exhbits, is facially insufcient to support
the Company's position.
Another troubling aspect to ths case, paricularly to the extent the Commssion
determines that it cares the burden of proof on LIW AMrelated issues, is the fact that because
CAP AI had to effectively rely on cross-examintion to rebut the Company's direct cas, its
abilty to car whatever burden of proof the Commssion believes it has depended on the
wilingness of Company witnesses to cooperate in good faith and provide meangfu answers to
relevant questions. On several occasions, when CAP AI attempted to elicit inormation from
Company witnesses, Rocky Mounta objected that Ms. Coughin was the only person at hearg
who should be required to respond. See, e.g., Tr. p. 205, Ins. 4-7. (objecting to questions asked of
Mr. WaljeJ,p. 641, Ins. 4-21 andp. 646, Ins. 1-11 (objecting to questions asked of Ms. Hunter).
Counel for CAP AI was also instrcted by the Commssion on occasion to defer certn LIWA-
related questions to Ms. Coughin. Tr. p. 645, Ins. 7-12. In addition, both Mr. Walje and Ms.
Hunter deferred many LIWA questions to Ms. Coughin. See, e.g., testimony of Carol Hunter,
Tr. p. 644, Ins. 1-4 and 19-21, etc. When questioned how LIWA-related decisions are made for
puroses of general rate cases, however, it became clea that the person who makes all
significant decisions was not a witness to the case and unvailable for cross-examtion. As
confed by witnesses Walje, Hunter, and Coughin ths person is Kaen Gilmore. See, e.g., Tr.
5
CAP AI POST -HEARIG BRIEF
p. 1075, Ins. 14-20. It is not known to CAP AI if Ms. Gilmore was even present durg the
hearng.
Oter witnesses, including Company President and Board of Directors member Richard
Walje, did not know what Rocky Mounta's Idao revenue requiement or gross operating
revenues ar, or other benchmarks to which the Company's curent LIWA fudig could
logically be compared to assess whether it is reasonable. Tr. pp. 205-206. Mr. Walje concluded
tht he had "assumed" that an evaluation of what Rocky Mountan's LIWA position should be in
ths case ha been performed by other Company personnel, though he could not identify a
specific person who had made the decision. Tr. p. 207, Ins. 21-24. Considering the dear of
information contained in Ms. Coughin's testimony, and the fact that Ms. Gilmore who has
ultimate authority over the Company's position on LIW A was unavailable for cross-examnation,
ths made it impossible to extract from the Company how it makes its LIW A decisions, what
benchmks, indices, or other criteria it considers, and what futue plans it has, if any, regarding
LlWA.
C. Parity of LIW A Funding and Program Design
To justify her position, Ms. Ottens calculated how much Rocky Mounta is fuding
LlW A on a per customer basis compared to Idao Power and A VISTA. Ms. Otens focused on
A VISTA's LIW A fuding and program design featues noting that Idaho Power's curent LIW A
fuding level is somewhat dated compard to Rocky Mountain and A VISTA, the latter of which
recently increased its fuding in Cas No. A VU-E-I0-01. In any event, Rocky Mounta's
LIW A fuding falls signficantly below both Idaho Power and A VISTA.
6
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIF
According to Ms. Otens' calculations, Rocky Mounta's per capita fuding level is
$2.64 while AVISTA's is $4.08.2 The totaity of the Company's response to Ms. Otens's
comparson of Rocky Mountan LIWA fuding to A VISTA is contaned in 8 lines of Ms.
Coughin's rebutt testiony. Tr at p. 1069, Ins 23-24. Ms. Coughin testified:
Q. Does the Company support Ms. Otens recommendation to increase
Low Income Weatherition Progr fuding to equa that of Avista?
A. No. The Company's fuding of the Low Income Weatherition
Program (Schedule 21) canot be directly compared with other utilties.
For example, A vista provides both electrc and natual gas servce in
portions of Idaho, and the company (Rocky Mounta) provides electrc
service only. A greater percentage of the Company's residential customers
use natual gas as a heating source. Since the largest opportty for energy
savings is often related to heating effciencies, it would be necessar to
include fuding from the natu gas supplier serving the Company's
customers in a fudig comparson.
Testimony of Coughlin at p. 24, In.s 5-14.
The foregoing testimony is the entire rationale Rocky Mounta presents as to why its
fuding level should appropriately remai substantially below tht of Idao Power and A VISTA.
Furermore, this statement conta two factuly inccurate inerences. Firt, Ms. Coughlin
infers that Ms. Otens' calculations of AVISTA's LIWA fuding relative to Rocky Mountain
fails to account for the fact that Rocky Mountan has customers who use gas as their primar
heat source. The inerence is tht it is unai to compare Rocky Mountain to A VISTA because
the latter is both an electric and gas utilty, while Rocky Mounta only serves electrc
customers, some of whom use gas as their primar heat source. Thus, Ms. Coughin's inerence
is that Ms. Otens failed to compare apples to apples.
2 Ms. Otens explained durg the hearg that her testimony contained severa misstatements. Ms. Otens' direct
testimony calculated A VISTA's fuding level at $6.64 which included both gas and electrc heat customers. Ms.
Otens explained on the stad th by eliminating AVISTA's gas customers, its per capita LIW A fudig was $4.08,
stil nearly twice that of Rocky Mountain.
7
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
In reality, as explained above, Ms. Otens compared Rocky Mounta's per capita
fuding level to the AVISTA fudig level of electrc customer only, excluding gas. Ths
avoids the apples to oranges scenaro that Rocky Mountan iners exists. Ths calculation shows
that A VISTA's fuding level is nearly twce tht of Rocky Mounta.
The second inference created by Ms. Coughlin's testimony is that Rocky Mountain's
LIW A customers use natu gas as their primar heat source and that it is unair for the
Company to increase its LIW A fuding without somehow convicing the local natual gas
supplier (Intermountain Ga) to fud a LIW A progr. Tr. at p.1 072, Ins. 14-19. First, Ms.
Coughlin fails to mention that Idaho Power is an electrc-only utility as well, and Rocky
Mountain's LIWA fuding also falls below tht utilty.
Second, Ms. Coughin conceded that she did not know whether the Commssion had the
legal authority to force Intermounta Ga to implement a LIWA-type progr in Rocky
Mountain's service terrtory. Tr. p. 1073, In. 4.
Finly, and most signficantly, Ms. Coughin fails to point out that, puruat to contract
between Rocky Mountan and the Communty Action Agencies with its servce terrtory,
LIW A recipients MUST use electrcity as their primar heat source to qualify for benefits under
the progra. Thus, Ms. Coughlin has confsed the record by raising a non-issue, inerrng that
Rocky Mountain has somehow been unfairly singled out for different tratment when the
opposite is tre.
It is diffcult to acpt that the person identified by Rocky Mounta as havig the most
relevant knowledge ofLIWA, and who was responsible for setting fort the Company's LIWA
position in ths case, would be unaware of whether the Company's LIW A program allows non-
electrc heat source customer to receive LIWA benefits, yet that is what Ms. Coughin's rebutt
8
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
testimony suggests. In fact, Ms. Coughin admittd tht she is aware of the LIW A contract
between the Company and the two Communty Action Agencies operatig in Rocky Mountain's
service terrtory. Tr. p. 1070, Ins. 19-21.
Furermore, the requiement tht LIW A paricipants us electrcity as their priar heat
source is a contractual provision adamantly insisted upon by the Company. Not anticipating that
Ms. Coughin would allow the inaccurte inerence contained in her rebutt regarding heat
source to remain on the record durg the hearg, CAP AI hatily prepared and introduced its
Exhbit No. 701 durg the additiona diect examtion ofTeri Ottns. Ms. Otens identified
Exhbit No. 701 as a copy of the contrct executed by the Communty Action Agencies in Rocky
Mountan's service terrtory and the Company. That contract clearly states that LIWA recipients
must use electrcity as their primar heat source. Ths was the sole point of introducing Exhbit
701. It should be noted tht, despite Ms. Cougin's rebutt testimony which confses ths fact,
no pary to ths proceeding ever formally claied that LIW A benefits are not limited to
customers who rely priarly on electrcity as a heat source.
On cross-examnation, however, Stas attorney asked Ms. Otens to note that Exhbit
No. 701 was not the signed copy. Though Sta accurately pointed out ths techncality, Staffs
relevant personnel are well aware that the LIW A program is only available to electrc heat
customers. Ths is an example of how allowing a utilty to litigate solely though rebutt can
cause other paries' focus to become distrted or confed from salient facts. Regardless of
whether she ha ever seen the LIW A contrt, Ms. Cougin knew ful well its heat soure
requiement and that the contrct itself is inconsistent with her rebuttal testimony inerrg that
Rocky Mounta shouldn't be compared to A VISTA without including Intermounta Gas in
9
CAP AI POST -HEARG BRIEF
LIW A fuding discussions becaus many of Rocky Mountan's customers use gas as a heat
source.
In sumar, LIWA is only available to Rocky Mountan's electrc heat customers and
Ms. Ottns compared the relative fuding of only AVISTA's electrc heat customers to Rocky
Mountain's in calculating relative LIWA fudig. Ms. Coughin's protestations of unairess
are utterly without merit. CAP AI agrees that it would be ideal for Intermounta Gas to
implement a LIW A program. The Commission is, of course, keenly aware of the legal
limitations tht differ between gas and electrc public utilities. Regardless, to the best of
CAP AI's knowledge, no other utilty has ever used Intermounta's absence as an excuse for
how their LIW A program is trated.
Thus, Rocky Mountan failed to offer a single legitimate reason why its LIW A fuding
level should continue to fall so far behind Idao Power and A VISTA. Though Staff witness
Beverly Barker offers alternative suggestions how best to calculate an appropriate LIW A fudig
level, she agrees that party among utilities is a reasonable objective. Ms. Barker also agrees that
there is a substatial disparty between the need for low-income weatherization in Rocky
Mountain's Idao servce terrtory and available resours to meet that need and suggests that
fudig of $300,000.00 for Rocky Mountain would be appropriate.3 Rebuttal Testimony of
Beverly Barker at p. 6.
Finly, regarding the disputed program design in which Rocky Mounta will fud only
75% of any given LIW A project, whereas Idao Power curntly fuds 85% and A VISTA 100%,
the Company doesn't even purrt to offer any explantion why ths parcular program design
feature should differ from other utilties.
3 Incidentaly, no par to ths proceedig has ever denied the disparty between the nee for LIWA and existing
LIW A resources.
10
CAPAI POST-HEARIG BRIEF
D. Pending LIW A "Evaluation"
First, it should be noted that no par to ths proceedig disputed that Rocky Mountan's
LIW A program constitutes a prudent, cost-effective resource including Rocky Mountan itself.
This fact was elicited from Company witnesses Walje, Hunter and Coughin. Tr. pp.204, In. 19, p.
638, In. 5, and, p. 1076 In. 19, respectively.
The sole rationale offered by Rocky MountR for deferrg even considering increasing
LIW A fuding or otherwise modfying the program is that there is a pending evaluation of the
cost-effectiveness of the progr. See, e.g., Rebuttal Testimony Barbara Coughlin, p. 25, Ins.
14-16. Ths rationale fails for numerous reasons.
First, as indicated by Company witness Coughin, the evaluation is the tady compliance
by the Company with Commission Order No. 30239 in Case No. P AC-E-06-1 O. That Order was
the result of a negotiated settlement ageement between CAP AI and Rocky Mountain.4 Among
other thgs, it prohibited CAP AI from proposing any changes to LIW A for two year.5 In
exchange, Rocky Mounta agred to, among other thngs, complete an evaluation of LIW A after
March 31, 2009 for possible future fuding increases or program design changes. See, Order No.
30239 at p. 3. Order No. 30239 was issued Febru 8, 2007. Thus, Rocky Mounta ha been
aware of its Commssion-ordered obligation to conduct a LIW A evaluation for nearly four years.
Though Order No. 30239 states that the evaluation will be completed after March 31, 2009, the
Company ha had a substantial amount of time to prepare for and complete this study.
In spite of tht settlement ageement, and nearly two years afr it could and should have
been completed, Rocky Mountan stil has not completed the evaluation and it apparently will
not be completed until the first par of next year, at the earliest. In fact, Rocky Mounta's own
4 This was confired by Ms. Coughlin durg cross-examination. Tr. p. 1081, In. 9
5 From April 1, 2007 though March 31, 2009.
11
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
witnesses offer differing predictions of when the evaluaion will be completed. Witness Hunter
testified that it might be Februar or Marh of next year (Tr. p. 646, Ins 18-23) though as stated
below, ths is not guteed Ms. Coughin testified tht she had been told the evaluation would
be ready in Febru, 2011, but acknowledges tht Ms. Hunter ha grater involvement in
monitoring the evaluation. As the rebutt testimony of Staf witness Beverly Barker suggests,
Staf believed the study would be completed by the end of ths year. Rebuttal Testimony of
Beverly Barker, p. 7, Ins. 8-10. Given tht the Company has failed to conduct the evaluation in
the time fre ordered by ths Commssion and when expected by Sta, it is uneasonable to
allow it to us whatever the evaluation might reveal as grounds for refuing to increase LIW A
fuding or otherwse modify the progr.
Second, there seems to be a complete lack of knowledge on the par of the very Company
witnesses either responsible for monitorig the study or who manage the LIW A program as to
exactly what the evaluation will supposedly reveal and, more importtly, what Rocky Mountan
intends to do with the evaluation if and when it is ever completed. For example, regarding
whether the LIW A evaluation will tae into account the need, available resources, impact on
ratepayers, and other aspets of LIW A, Ms. Coughin testified: "(t)he Cadus evaluation I have
not seen and I canot speak to that." Tr. p. 1079, Ins. 2-3"
Regardig what Rocky Mountan intends to do with the evaluation once it is completed,
Ms. Coughin testified:
Q. All right. And has the Company mae any commtment in terms of
what it intends to do once it has that report ( evaluation) in its hand?
A. I believe that I stated in my testimony that it would be appropriate to
review it with the paries once we have received it and tht would be our
intention: discussions at tht point once we have the evaluation and have the
appropriate inormtion to entert discussions.
12
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
Tr. pp. 1081-82.
Ms. Coughin added that the evaluation would be included in Rocky Mountan's anual
"DSM Report" but did not know when tht report would be released. Tr. p. 1082, In. 24. When
pressed as to exactly what the Company intended to do with the evaluation, Ms. Coughin
testified under cross-examnation that Rocky Mountain would "share the results of tht if there is
a strong group of staeholders who want to look at those results" (Tr. p. 646, Ins. 12-14-
Emphasis supplied). Ms. Hunter also testified tht the evaluation results would be included in
Rocky Mounta's 2010 Anua Report (Tr. p. 646, Ins. 9-11) but conceded that the completion
of the evaluation was far from guaranteed statig that it "will be available the end of Febru,
first of Marh, provided that we have access to the data tht we requie frm thd pares." Tr. p.
646, Ins 21-23. (Emphasis supplied). It is unclear what she mean by neeing "access to the data
that we require from thd pares" and whether ths could signficantly delay completion of the
evaluation which the Company insists is a condition prerequisite to a LIW A fuding increase or
progr design change. In spite of her uncertty regarding the completion of the evaluation,
Ms. Hunter testified tht she is the person with the Company in charge of monitoring tht
evaluation. Tr. p. 646, In. 17.
CAP AI submits that these tyes of statements are far from specific and offer no assurce
when the evaluation will be completed, what it will reveal, what Rocky Mountain intends to do
with the evaluation once it has it, when it will do it, and how the evaluation might affect Rocky
Mounta's LIWA progr. Ths poses simply too many layers of uncerty.
As testified by witnesses Hunter and Coughin, the entity penorming the LIW A
evaluation is an organzation known as "Cadmus" which PacifiCorp has used extensively over
the years to penorm numerous taks (Tr. pp. 643-645, Mtestimony of Carol Hunter). Witness
13
CAP AI POST -HEARG BRIEF
Brian Hedman who is a pricipal at Cadmus testified that until 2002, and for the preceding 20
years, he was DSM policy manager for PacifiCorp. Mr. Hedman testified that, based upon a
review aleady performed by Cadus, he has determned that all of Rocky Mountan's DSM
progrs, including LIW A, for the years 2008-2009 were prudent and cost effective. See,
Supplemental Testimony of Brian Hedman, p. 11. Though ths is generally consistent with the
testimonies of Company witnesses Walje, Hunter and Coughin with respect to LIWA, it fuer
calls into question why the Company believes tht no chages to LIW A can be justified until a
cost-effectiveness evaluation is conducted for LIW A when its own witnesses all concur tht it
ha already been evaluated, to some extent, and is a prudent and cost-effective DSM resource.
In fact, Ms. Coughin cited cost-effectiveness as the primar reason why the evaluation
must be completed before modifying LIW A. She testified durng cross-examination:
Q. ...I'm askig about the evaluation, that you condition a chage to
LIW A on that evaluation. What is it about the evaluation that is signficant
to you?
A. The cost-effectiveness test would be first and foremost as to whether
it's getting the results tht were intended.
Tr. p. 1080, Ins 2-7 (emphasis supplied)).
Thus, Rocky Mounta presented Mr. Hedman to testify that the DSM investment for
which the Company seeks rate recovery in ths case, including LIWA, was prudent and cost-
effective, but tht a cost-effectiveness evaluation for LIW A stil must be completed before
Rocky Mountain will increase its investment in tht DSM resource. It is quite curous why,
knowing nearly four years ago that a cost-effectiveness evaluation ofLIWA would be conducted
pursuat to Commssion Order No. 30239, the Company had the same contrctor who would
perform tht evaluation, simultaeously perform another evaluation assessing the cost-
effectiveness of, among others, the LIW A program.
14
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
Whle CAP AI obviously agrees that Rocky Mountai should shae the results of the
evaluations with other paries and be willng to discuss it, the Company has not presented a
single credible reason why, under these unusual cirumstaces, this increasingly stale and
argubly redundat evaluation should hold up implementing changes to LIW A. The whole point
for CAP AI when it negotiated the evaluation almost four year ago was tht it would
demonstrate a good faith commitment on the par of Rocky Mountain to consider the
reasonableness of increasing its investment in LIWA and modifying or eliminting the 75/25%
fuding condition. In trth it seems tht the evaluation has simply been used as nothg more
than a meas to defer increasing LIW A fuding or implementing program design changes.
Given the Company's track record, it is safe to assume tht uness the Commssion
intervenes, Rocky Mountain's LIWA progr will continue to langush and fall behind others
into the foreseeable futue.
III. CONCLUSION
CAP AI respectfully submits that the Commission order Rocky Mountan to increase is
LIW A fuding simultaeous with the effective date of whatever rates result from ths proceeding
and that the Company's 75/25% LIW A fudig allocation be elimated entirely.
DATED, ths 21st day of December, 2010.
.~..........)¿3J(¿~~_ (~
Bra M. Purdy ~~~-_.~''\-... .-J
15
CAP AI POST-HEARG BRIEF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 21st day of December, 2010, I sered a copy
of the foregoing document on the followig by email and U.S. mail, fist class postae.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mounta Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Paul J. Hickey
Hickey & Evans, LLP
1800 Carey Ave., Suite 700
Box 467
Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82003
Mark Moench
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Tim Buller
Agrum, Inc.
3010 Conda Rd.
Soda Springs, ID 83276
Benjamn J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
Boise,ID 83702
Don Reading
6070 Hil Rd.
16
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF
Boise,ID 83703
dreading~mindspring.com
Melinda J. Davison
Davison Van Cleve, P.C.
333 S.W. Taylor, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Ronald L. Wiliams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 Hays St.
Boise,ID 83702
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, et al
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83201
Anthony Yanel
29814 Lake Rd.
Bay Vilage, OH 44140
Radal C. Budge
Racine, Olson, et al
201 E. Center
Pocatello,ID 83201
James R. Smith
Monsanto Company
P.O. Box 816
Soda Sprigs, in 83276
DATED, ths 21st day of December, 2010
--. /---=~ r-"'\Cl/IQL___-' to C\~/l - "C
c::z:-;./ Bra M. Purdy
17
CAPAI POST-HEARG BRIEF