20110314Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration.pdf

r'
Idaho Public Utiities Commission
Office of the Secretary
RECEIVED
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
BarNo. 3472
2019 N. 17th 81.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
bmpurdy(ßhotmail.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Communty Action Parership
Association of Idao
MAR f 1 2011
Boise, Idaho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
IN TH MATTER OF TH APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAI
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHAGES TO
ITS ELECTRC SERVICE SCHEDULES
)
) CASE NO. PAC-E-IO-07
)
) COMMTY ACTION
) P ARTNRSlß ASSOCIA-
) TION'S PETITION FOR
) CLARFICATION/
) RECONSIDERATION
)
COMES NOW, the Communty Action Parership Association ofIdao ("CAP AI") and
puruat to Rule 325 or, in the alterntive, Rule 331 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAP A 31.01.01.325/331, petitions for clarfication/reconsideration of Order No 32196 issued in
this case on Febru 28,2011.
I. INRODUCTION
Durng the coure of ths proceeding, an issue previously unown to CAP AI arose
though the rebutt testiony of Rocky Mountan Power ("RM" or "Company") witness
Barbara Coughin when she referred to the Company's Low-Income Conservation Education
program ("coI)rvation education") as a "one-time commitment," as opposed to an anua,
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICATIONlRCON8IDERA nON 1
./
ongoing DSM program.
1 The progr was established in RM's last general rate cas (PAC-E-
08-07 - referred to herein as the "08-7 case") and approved by the Commssion in Order No.
30783.2 To CAP AI's knowledge, RM had never publicly taen ths position prior to Ms.
Coughin's rebutt testimony. Thus, CAPAI did not anticipate ths issue and had no opportty
under the case schedule in ths proceeding to address it though testony or the introduction of
other evidence at hearg.
RM's stace on ths issue has effectively nullified the progr, contricts the position
of Commssion Staff in this proceeding, and makes compliance with a Settlement Stipulation and
prior Commssion Orders diffcult if not impossible. Unless and until the Commssion resolves
this threshold issue and orders the paries to move forward, RMP's conservation education
program is in staemate.
II. BACKGROUN
The factual and legal basis for ths Petition is somewhat convoluted. Though the genesis
for ths Petition is the Settlement Stipulation executed by all paries to the 08-7 cas, the fact that
an issue exists, and the basis for that issue, can only be found in the record in ths case.
Consequently, CAPAI must cautiously assume tht the twenty-one (21) day reconsideration
deadline might apply to the Final Order issued in this proceeing, and ths Petition, and proceeds
on that basis.3
i Coughlin Reb. p. 23, In. 15.
2 CAP AI requests tht the Commission tae "Offcial Notice" in considerig ths Petition of all maters allowed in
Rule 263 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (IDAPA 31.01.01.263), speifically includig prior Order,
notices, matters of common knowledge and teclmical, fiancial and scientific facs, as well as data contained in
periodic reports of reguated utilities.
IDAPA 31.01.01.31(01).
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICATIONIRCONSIDERA nON 2
.~
A. Case No. PAC-E-08-07: Order No. 30783
The entirety of the terms and conditions of the conseration education program are
contained in the 08-7 Settlement Agreement (paragraph 8) fied on Febru 25, 2009 and
approved in Order 30783 on April 16,2009. The Stipulation provides:
8. The Paries agree that the demand-side management progrs
proposed by Rocky Mounta Power in Docket No. PAC-E-08-01 are
prudent. Furer, the Paries agree that a tota of$50,000 of demand-side
management program fuds will be made available to Southastern
Idaho Communty Action Agency and Eatern Idaho Communty Action
Parership to be usd to supprt consrvation education as a component
of Rocky Mounta Power's low income weatherization program,
Schedule 21. Paries agree that it is the responsibility of the Communty
Action Parership Association of Idaho to propose sad education
program to Rocky Mounta Power by May 1, 2009 and that the
proposal will contain fuding proportionig the $50,000 beeen the two
agencies, objectives and any savings estimtes to assist in program
evaluations and reporting reguirements. The Pares agree that the low
income weatherization program (Schedule 21) and the conservation
education component of the progr is in the public interest and is
determined to be cost-effective even though the explicit quatification of
benefits may not be possible, and fuermore, the Paries agree to
support the justification and recovery of these costs though the demand-
side management surcharge fuding.
Settlement Stipulation Par. 8, pp. 3-4lemphasis aded).
In approving the Stipulation, the Commssion rued:
CAP AI proposes tht RM fud an energy conservation education
progra specifically tageted to low-income customers. The two CAP
agencies curently providig low-income servce with RM's service
terrtory are SEICA and EICAP. The paries agred to work
collaboratively to arve at a fai, just and reasonable allocation of
fuding (# ofRM customers in eah of the respective CAP servce
areas, etc.) and CAP AI ageed to submit a low-income education
program proposal to the Company by May 1. The progr will fud
personnel and materials to CAP agencies to provide conservation
education to all RMP customers who apply for LIHEAP. Tr. pp. 95~98.
Order No. 30783 at p. 7.
CAPAI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERATION 3
The Commssion found the enti Stipulation to be "fair, just and reasonable" without any
additiona discussion or analysis of conservation education.4
B. The Case Below
All matters relevant to conservation education and ths Petition that ocured between the
issuace of Order No. 30783 and the heang in the present case are either discussed in the
testimony of Sta witness Curis Thaen, the rebutt and cross-examination testony of RMP
witness Cougin or are matters the Commission may tae Official Notice of pursuat to
Procedur Rule 263, IDAPA 31.01.01.263.5 CAPAI refr from introducing new evidence
that falls outside of the foregoing classifications.
1. Commission Staff Position
Though Mr. Thaden expressed a number of techncal concerns in his direct testimony
about whether the CAP agencies were implementing the program quickly enoug, whether to
split the program into two separte components, one for each CAP agency involved, and other
techncal issues,6 Mr. Thaden specifically described conservation education as a program that
would receive anua fuding testifying:
Q. What is the status of the Energy Conservation Education progr that
was approved by Commssion Order No. 30783 in RM's previous rate
case (pAC-E-08-01)?
A. As par of the rate case settlement (PAC-E-08-01), RM agreed to
support an Energy Conservation Education program in Idaho by
providig $50,000 in anual fuding though its DSM taff rider to
SEICA and EICAP. As of October 1,2010, the program ha not yet been
implemented.
Testimony of Curtis Thaden, p. 24, Ins. 8-16lEmphasis added).
Mr. Thaden concluded:
4 Order No. 30783 at p. 9.
5 Mr. Thaden did not fie rebutt testiony. Sta witness Beverly Barker did, but did not address consrvation
education. CAP AI witness Teri Otens did not addrss conservation education.6 Direct Testimony C. Thaden, pp. 24-26.
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERATION 4
Sta recommends that while the anua fuding amount should be
maintaed at its curent level of $50,000, the fuding level should not be
increased at ths time. Furerore, Sta recommends that RM include
ths fuding amount in its budget but that no fuer expenditures
be made until a workshop is held and a decision made on how to best
provide energy consrvation education statewide.
¡d. at p. 26, 1ns. 10-14 (emphasis added).
Regarding Mr. Thaden's technical concerns, he articulated Staffs position that it is importnt
that decisions be made regarding whether conservation education progrms should be implemented
on a localized level, or within the framework of a larger design. He testified:
Approaching the progr as two separate programs rather than one has
the potential to increase the overal cost while reducing the effectiveness
of the program. Ths situation raises the question of whether low income
energy conservation education should be provided on a locaized
utilty by utility, CAP by CAP basis. Sta recommends that the
Commssion diect Sta to hold a workshop with utilties and other
interested paries to determe how best to provide energy conservation
education tageted to low income customers thoughout the state.
Testimony of C. Thaden at p. 25, Ins. 12-25.
Incidentaly, RM has not paid the CAP agencies the entire $50,000 as of the date of ths
Petition. Furermore, though CAP AI is quite willing to paricipate in any workshop or other
proceeding Sta believes necessar to address Mr. Thaden's stated issues and proposals, such an
undertng is futile uness and until the Commssion orders RM to treat conservation
education as an ongoing progr. For reasons ariculated below, ths is a theshold issue that
must be resolved fist if Stas issues and proposals are to have meang and relevance.
2. RMP Position
In her rebutt testimony, RMP witness Coughin seemigly agreed with all of Mr.
Thaden's diect testimony, but charcterized conservation education in a maner that CAPAI
deems entirely contradictory:
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERA TION 5
Q. Does the Company agree with Mr. Thaden's recommendation
regardig a workshop on providing energy conservation education to
low-income households?
A. Yes. The Company believes it would be worthwhile for Commission
sta to lead a workshop with attendees representing electrc and gas
utilties as well as sta from the local agencies that work with limted
income households on a daily basis. It is importt for gas suppliers to
paricipate and provide fudig for ths effort as a large percentage of
our residential customers' heating soure is natual gas.
Q. Does the Company support Mr. Thaden's recommendation related to
the fuding of low income energy conservation education.
A. Yes. We appreciate that Mr. Then recognes tht Rocky Mountain
Power sta has worked with CAP AI sta in developing a program plan
and goals in an effort to implement ths project. Rocky Mountain Power
made a one-time commtment of $50,000 to fud low income energy
conservation education in Febru 2009 though a Stipulation in Case
No. P AC-E-08-07. Those fuds have yet to be used by CAP AI for ths
effort.
Testimony of B. Coughlin, p. 23 (emphasis added).
During cross-examination, Ms. Coughlin confirmed the Company's stce that conservation
education would not be fuded more than once contr to what CAP AI and Staff had believed:
Q. And in your rebuttl, you characterie the conservation education
progrm as a one-time commitment -
A. Yes.
Q. - by Rocky Mountain. Is that corrct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Am I to assume then that the Company does not intend to fud this on
an ongoing annual basis?
A. The commitment right now is a one-time, and that's the only
commitment that is out there.
Tr. p. 1066, Ins. 6-14.
Though neither Ms. Coughlin nor RM has yet defined precisely what the expression "one-
time commitment" means, the definition seems to rely on the single word "total." Ms. Coughlin
elaborated:
Q. And isn't it tre that the low-income weatheriztion program is an
ongoing annual progrm?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Does it make sense for the Company to characterie it as a component
of an ongoing progrm, yet only be a one-time commitment?
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICA TIONIRCONSIDERA TION 6
A. It is a total of $50,000 commitment.
Q. Could a reasonable person constre that as a total annual $50,000
commitment?
A. It is a total $50,000 commitment.
Tr. pp. l067-1068lemphais added).
3. Order No. 32196
Though Order No. 32196 increased the amount of Low-Income Weatherition Assistance
and raised the cap on the total fuds invested by the Company on any given project from 75% of total
eligible project costs to 85%, it did not resolve the conservation education issue, or Mr. Thaden's
numerous proposals, including hat a workshop be conducted to fuher define and refine that
program. CAPAI greatly appreciates the Commission's rulings on and awarness of the importnce
of addressing the needs of RM' s low-income customers found in Order No. 32 i 96. CAP AI fully
understads that it carres the responsibilty to competently administr the conservation education
progrm and is not seeking a waiver of that obligation. What CAP AI seeks is an order on
reconsideration or clarification removing the barer RM has constrcted preventing CAP AI from
taking on the challenge of competently administring the progrm in a manner consistent with the
spirit and intent of the 08-7 Stipulation.
Along these lines, CAP AI concedes that the program was not implemented in as timely a
manner as it could have been. This fact has been and is being aggrssively remedied by CAP AI.
Should the Commssion find it necessar, CAP AI stands ready to fully explain why this occured and
what it has done to remedy the mattr. As long as RM stads firm on its refual to even consider
conservation education an ongoing progrm, however, there is no point to such explanations. The
overriding fact is that regardless of whether Mr. Thaden's proposals are addressed and regardless of
what has or has not trspired, RM does not intend and never has intended to treat conservation
education as anything but a one-time expenditur of fuds, renderig Mr. Thaden's desire for an
improved and defined program strctu meaningless. Thus, CAP AI seeks an Order from this
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERATION 7
Commission removing the barer to implementation of the program that RM has erected. CAPAI
believes that once this is done, the technical matters raised by Mr. Thaden can be cooperatively
addressed by all concerned and the program swifty implemented. First, however, there must be a
progrm to implement.
il. ARGUMNT
A. Procedural Options
Procedural Rule 33 ¡7 states:
331. PETITIONS AND CROSS-PETITIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION
01. Petition for Reconsideration. Within twenty-one (21) days after the
service date of issuance of any final order, any person interested in a final
order or any issue decided in a final order of the Commission may petition
for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically
the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or any
issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawfl, erroneous or not in
conformity with the law, and a statement of the natu and quatity of
evidence or argument the petitioner wil offer if reconsideration is grnted.
Rule 3258 of the Commission's procedurl rules seekig clarification states:
325. CLARICATION OF ORDERS
Any person may petition to clarfy any order, whether interlocutory or finaL.
Petitions frm final orders do not suspend or toll the time to petition for
reconsideration or appeal a final order. A petition for clarification may be
combined with a petition for reconsideration or stated in the alternative as a
petition for clarification and/or reconsideration. The Commission may
clarify any order on its own motion.
The "sideways" manner in which the issue was raised in this case has created somewhat of a
procedural conundr. Normally, it might be more appropriate to seek clarification of Order No.
30783 issued in the 08-7 case. On the other hand, the issue was raised, fred, and put on the record
exclusively in this case. It would seem more expeditious, therefore, for the Commission to avail
itself of the record below, take Offcial Notice of all relevant mattrs in the 08-7 case, and issue an
order here without requirig the additional effort and cost to all concerned through the initiation of a
7 IDAPA, 31.01.01.331.
8 IDAPA, 31.01.01.25.
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERATION 8
new docket, or reopening of a closed docket, and a repetition of the effort alrady made in this one
to put the issue before the Commission.
Along these lines, CAP AI questions the "sideways" manner in which RM brought this issue
to the Commission's and parties' attntion resulting in an unnecessar expenditu of very limited
resources by the very part that RM contrctully committd to working with in this manner in a
collaborative fashion. In addition RM's procedurl tack undermines all of the effort taen by
CAP AI and Staff in the 08-7 case. The intent of the 08-7 Stipulation was to provide the necessary
education to the Company's low-income customers to assist them in manging their consumption.
RM's apparent attitude toward conservation education is that it is an obligation to be minimalized
or avoided altogether. This attitude has resulted in a considerable waste of precious resources by
CAPAI and Staffwho relied in good faith on the belief that conservation education was trly an
integrl component of Low-Income Weatherition as the Stipulation states. RM has allowed those
parties to suffer under a false impression.
B. RM's Interpretation of the Stipulation is Factually and Logically Untenable
1. The word "Total"
RM's entire rationale for its position on conservation education seems to be the presence of
the word "total" in the second sentence of Paragraph 8 ofthe Stipulation. RM's position, by logical
extension, is tht the word ''total'' applies both to the amount of fuding and the life of the program.
Put another way, ''total'' means everying. Whatever surface level appeal this arguent holds
quickly dissolves when scrutinized and placed into proper context.
The Stipulation's second sentence states that a total of $50,000 ofDSM fuds "wil be made
available to Southstern Idaho Community Action Agency and Eastern Idaho Community Action
Parership." The Stipulation subsequently provides that CAP AI would submit a proposa by May
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERA TION 9
1 (2009) that would, among other thgs, set fort an allocation of the $50,000 between the two
CAP agencies.
The word ''total'' as it appears in the Stipulation simply refers to the maximum amount of
fuding that will be paid to the two CAP Agencies to implement conservation education.
Because the allocation of the tota would not be determed until after a fial Order had been
issued in the case, and because RM would be requid to fie related taffs and/or schedules
with the Commission to reflect its investment in conservation education and the effect it might
have on customers' rates, it was necessar to include a tota fuding amount in the Stipulation
for the Commssion's consideration. It has no relation, however, to the life of the program itself.
Had that been RM's intent, it should have insisted upon verbiage in the Stipulation makg that
clear.
2. Additional Contextual Information
The issue of allocating tota conservation fuds between more than one CAP agency was
placed before the Commssion in Case No. IPC-E-08-10 when the Commssion grted CAPAls
proposal to establish, for the first time, a similar conservation education program for Idaho
Power which ha five CAP agencies operating in its Idao service terrtory. CAP AI proposed
fuding a tota of $125,000 to be allocated equally between the agencies.9 In Final Order No.
30722, the Commssion rued: "(t)hus, the Commssion directs Idao Power to fud each ofthe
Communty Action Parership (CAP) agencies located thoughout its service terrtory in the
amount of $25 000 anually - for a total amount of $125,000 anuaiy."l0
On reconsideration/clarfication, Idaho Power proposed allocating the tota amount of
fuding between the five CAP agencies based on their relative customer population base.
9 See, Order No. 30722
10Id at p. 46 (emphasis added).
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICATIONIRCONSIDERA TION 10
CAP AI Anwered the Petition agreeing to ths proposa. The Commssion accepted ths
agreement in Final Order No. 30740.
The Idao Power and RMP 2008 genera rate caes overlapped in time though the Idaho
Power case was slightly ahead in its schedule. This is relevant to ths Petition because it
provides the context in which the pares executed the RM 08-7 Settement Stipulation, and in
which the Commission approved it. Both cases involved implementation for the fi tie of
low-income conservation education programs for the two utilities. Both cases involved the need
to designate a total amount of fudig and allocation of that total between the CAP agencies
involved.
Procedurly, Idaho Power Fin Order 30722 was issued on Janua 30, 2008 while the
RM Settlement Stipulation was filed on Febru 5, 2008. Though the Idaho Power Petition for
Reconsideration was not filed until after the RM Settlement Stipulation was filed, CAP AI was
certainly aware that there would be a tota amount of fuding agreed upon fit, followed by a
decision how to allocate that total between agencies when it executed the RMP Settlement
Stipulation. Thus, the fact that a ''total'' of $50,000 was designated in Paragraph 8 of the RMP
Stipulation followed by a provision on how tht total will be allocated between CAP Agencies
simply made good sense to CAP AI. RM was well aware when the Stipulation was filed that
ongoing programs had aleady been approved and/or implemented for AVISTAll and Idao
Power. Agai, ifRMP intended to never again fud this program, it should have made this quite
clear. Its silence should not now become its advantae.
3. Other Terms and Conditions of the Stipulation
11 Case No. A VU-E-08-01, Order No. 30647 (Sept. 30, 2008).
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICATIONIRCONSIDERATION 11
Not only does nothg in the Settlement Stipulation limt RM's conservation education
program to a "one-time commtment," but numerous other aspects of the Stipulation contradict
RMP's interpretation.
First, conservation education is referred to in the Stipulation as a "progr," (not a one-
time expenditue) designed to "support" a "component" of another ongoing DSM program, the
Company's Low-Income Weatherization progr. Second, the conservation education program
was expected to involve energy "savings estimates to assist in progr evaluations and reporting
requiements." Thd, it was agreed by the paries that RM's investment in the progr "is in
the public interest and is deemed to be cost-effective." Four and finally, the paries agreed that
they would "support the justification and recovery" of these costs though the demand-side
management surcharge fuding like any other ongoing DSM progr.
It makes no sense to argue that consrvation education was intended by RMP to be a one-
time commitment considering that the paries agreed to inclusion of all the foregoing provisions
regarding prudence, savings, evaluations, ongoing progr effectiveness, reportng, and
recovery of investment through the DSM surcharge, which collects monies for a pool of other
ongoing DSM programs on an anua basis, to charterize consrvation education as a
"component" of the Company's long-stading low-income weatherization progr or to even
call conservation a "progr" at all if it was intended to be a one-tie expenditue. These are all
provisions tht are or can be applicable to ongoing DSM programs, not one-time expenditues.
C. RMP Seeks Special Status for its Program
Overlayig all of the foregoing with the fact that Idaho Power and A VISTA 12 had in
place similar if not identical ongoing conservation education programs in effect or approved
when the Stipulation languge above was filed with the Commssion makes it even more
12 Order No. 3067, Cas No. A VU-E-08-Q1 (Sept. 30,2008).
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICATIONIRCONSIDERA TION 12
uneasonable to constre RM's conservation education program as a one-tie commtmentY
In is not equitable to either Idaho Power or A VISTA to allow RM to walk away from a
commtment to a DSM program tht those other utilities have accepted as par of their ongoing
portfolio. More importtly, it is not fai to RM's low-income customers to whom the
Company has the greatest of obligation to live tre to its word.
D. Legal Principles of Equity Prohibits RM From Takig Its Stated Position
Whle the pares to the settlement stipulation ar prohibited from revealing the substace
of settlement negotiations, CAP AI witness Teri Ottns made it clear in testimony supporting the
08-7 Stipulation that CAP AI believed it had negotiated for an ongoing program simlar to other
utilities. Ms. Otens testifed:
Q. What else did Rocky Mountan Power agree to in its Stipulation of
paricular interest to CAP AI and the Company's general boy of
ratepayers?
A. Following in the wake of AVISTA's proposal to fud a low-income
specific conservation education program, and subseguently ordered by
the Commission in Idaho Power's recent rate case (IPC-E-08- 1 0), Rocky
Mounta Power agreed to fud a tota of $50,000.00 for the two CAP
agencies operating in Rocky Mounta's certificated area. Ths is
relatively eguivalent to the fuding levels of A VISTA and Idao Power.
Testimony T. Ottens p. 5 lemphasis added).
Ms. Otens' testiony left no doubt tht, like Sta, CAPAI intended for RM's
conservation education program to be ongoing simlar to the programs of Idaho Power and
A VISTA. Had RM perceived the program differently, it ha an afative obligation to make
this fact explicitly clear to the other paries and the Commssion.
What is parcularly inequitable about RM's position is that, in addition to the fact tht
RM is interpreting the Stipulation in a patently uneasonable maner under all of the
13 See, Order Nos. 30722 issued 1130/2009: Case No. IP-E-08- 10 (Order No. 30754 issued 3/19/09 on
reconsidertion) for Idao Power's conservation education progr and; Order No. 3067 issued 9/30/08, Case
A VU-E-08-01, for AVISTA's conservation education program.
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARICA TIONIRCONSIDERA TION 13
circumstaces, the Company lost any credible basis it might have had for claimg that it only
committed to a one-time expenditue by knowigly allowing CAP AI, Sta, and perhaps the
Commssion, to sufer under a false impression.
Under the legal priciples of, among others, "laches" and "estoppel," RM is prohibited
from knowingly allowig another par to act in good faith reliance on a false impression,
paricularly when said act results in daage to the other pary and advantage to RM. CAPAI is
prepared to fully brief these legal issues should the Commssion desire.
E. Practical Considerations
1. A One-Time Conservation Education Program is Impractical
Ms. Otens explaied the importce of low-income conservation in the 08-7 case as
follows:
Q. Do you believe that this low-income energy effciency education
progr is in the public interest and, if so, why?
A. Energy effciency is one of the most cost effective and long term
methods to reduce overall energy costs for both individual households
and nationally. The effort can be styed, however, by a lack of
knowledge, especially among a segment of population that often can
only concentrate on basic surival needs. An education program
provided by counselors that the low-income are aleady reaching out to
though the LIHEAP program ca provide essential education on
effective, low cost ways to achieve a reduction in their energy bil when
it is needed most.
Testimony ofT. Ottens, p. 6lemphasis added).
Ms. Ottens notes that it is essential that there be education available to customers already
engaged in the LIHEAP process on how to reduce their energy consumption. New eligible
customers in need of education will continue to flow through the system and there will always be
new inovations in energy conservation to provide them. Performg education of any kid only
once simply does not make sense when the recipients of that education, and the education itself,
are constantly changing.
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERATION 14
2. Testimonies of Mr. Thaden and Ms. Coughli in the Case Below
Though CAPAI takes exception to certin of the inferences created by the testimony of Mr.
Thaden, it agrees that certin measures were needed, and have ben taken, to ensur that the money
allocated to conservation education is properly and timely invested. Again, CAP AI wilingly agrees
to cooperate with Staff in any reasonable procedure that results in a productive and cost-effective
conservation education program. Engaging in such efforts under a cloud of uncertinty the progrm
wil even be in place a year from now, however, makes all of this diffcult, ifnot pointless.
Ms. Coughlin's rebuttl testimony gives the impression that RM agrees with everyhing Mr.
Thaden proposed for conservation education. In reality, the Company's staunch position that this
program wil only be funded one-time is actully a complete rebuke of Mr. Thaden's proposals. The
program is dead in the water unless the Commission orders RM to trat the program as part of its
ongoing DSM effort.
iv. CONCLUSION
RM has effectively shut the conservation education progr down in violation of the
Settlement Agreement in the 08-7 case. The entir record frming this issue, however, is contained
only in this cas. Staff has made a number of proposals regarding conservation education. Those
proposals are meaningless so long as RM maintains its position. CAP AI appreciates the
Commission's recognition oflow-income issues in Order No. 32196. CAPAI also acknowledges that
it must address Staffs concerns regarding conservation education and the responsibilties it cares to
competently administer the program and be answerable to the Commission should it fail to carr out
those responsibilties. All that CAP AI seeks by way of this Petition is a reconsideration or
clarification of Order No. 32196 removing the impasse that RM has created and giving CAP AI the
opportity to competently administer the progr.
fJ;
DATED, this 1! day of March, 2011.
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICA TIONIRCONSIDERA TION 15
G~~BradM. Pudy ~
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLl\ICA TIONIRCONSIDERA TION 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I/,
I, the undersigned, hereby certify tht on the.1 day of March, 201 1, I served a copy of
the foregoing document on the followig by email and U.S. mail, fit class postae.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
ted. weston(ipacificorp.com
Paul J. Hickey
Hickey & Evans, LLP
1800 Carey Ave., Suite 700
Box 467
Cheyenne, VVyorning, 82003
Mark Moench
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 1
daniel.solander(ipacificorp.com
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Tim Buller
Agrum, Inc.
30 10 Conda Rd.
Soda Springs, ID 83276
TBuller(iagrum.com
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
Boise,ID 83702
botto(iidahoconservation.org
Don Readng
6070 Hil Rd.
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICA TIONIRCONSIDERATION 17
~
Boise,ID 83703
dreading~mindsprig.com
Melinda J. Davison
Davison Van Cleve, P.C.
333 S.W. Taylor, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Ronald L. Willams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 Hays St.
Boise, ID 83702
Eric L. Olsen
Racine, Olson, et al
201 E. Center
Pocatello,ID 83201
elo(iracinelaw.net
Anthony Yanel
29814 Lake Rd.
Bay Vilage, OH 44140
tony(iyanel.net
Radall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, et al
201 E. Center
Pocatello,ID 83201
rcb(iracinelaw.net
James R.Smith
Monsanto Company
P.O. Box 816
Soda Springs, ID 83276
Jim.r.smith(imonsanto.com
l~
DATED, ths 11 day of March, 2011.
~...~~ ~
Bra M. Pudy
CAP AI PETITION FOR CLARFICATIONIRCONSIDERA TION 18