20111223Application Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
BarNo. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
bmpurdyWlhotmail.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Communty Action Parnership
Association of Idao
Qr-('E~f'J r~I\","\~..'~_t., :~,
ZOli DEC 23 Pr1 2: S2
L!T!
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
IN TH MATTR OF TH APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAI
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHAGES TO
ITS ELECTRC SERVICE SCHEDULES
)
) CASENO.PAC....U
)
) COMMTY ACTION
) P ARTNRSIlP ASSOCIA-
) nON'S PETITION FOR
) INTERVENOR FUNING
)
COMES NOW, the Communty Action Parership Association ofIdao (CAP AI) and,
pursuat to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01, petitions ths Commssion for an award of intervenor fuding in the above-
captioned proceding.
Rule 161 Requirements:
Rocky Mounta Power Company (RM or Company) is a reguated electrc public
utilty with gross Idaho intrtate anua revenues exceedig thee millon, five hundred
thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirements:
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 1
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commssion's Rules of Procedur, an itemied list of
all expenses incurd by CAP AI in ths proceeding is attched hereto as Exhbit "A."
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed fidings and recommendations of CAP AI ar set fort in the diect
testimony ofTen Otens fied in ths matter and were presented durg the techncal hearg
conducted December 19,2011. CAPAI offers the followig synopsis of its recommendations
and involvement in ths proceeding.
CAP AI opposes the settlement agment executed by the other paies to this proceeding
and is the only par to do so and parcipate in the techncal heanng accordigly. CAP AI
respectfuly recommends that the Commssion fid tht the settlement, as wntten, is not in the
best interests of low-income customers as well as the residential class and all customers as a
whole.
As explaied below, CAP AI respectfly recommends that the Commssion reject the
proposed settlement as proposed and order that RM's LIW A fudig be increased from its
curent level by $77,517.00.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAP AI submits that its requested costs are reasonable in amount. CAP AI fuly
paricipated in every aspect of ths case from its review of the Company's onginal filing though
settlement negotiations to ful techncal hearg on the issues and concerns raised by CAP AI,
covenng a penod in excess of seven month. CAP AI engaged in the servce of and response to
discovery, paricipated in settlement conferences, fied the diect testiony ofTen Ottens and
fully engaged in ths proceeding as the only par to litigate contested issues before the
Commission at heang.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 2
Because there ar no governent agencies or intervenors who reguarly intervene in
proceedings before ths Commssion advocatig the interests of the residential class exclusively,
and because a rapidly increasing number of customers in that class are joing the ran of low-
income, the importce of ths procdig from CAP AI's perspective, was broadened in depth
and scope.
Furermore, the simultaneous pendency of four genera rate cass and a case initiated
by RM challenging the cost-effectiveness of all low-income weathenzation programs! have
created an extremely importt but chalengig scenao for an intervenor with limted resources
such as CAP AI. The foregoing collection of simultaeous proceedigs has created what CAP AI
considers the most signficant moment in tie in terms of its involvement before ths
Commssion since CAP AI's first involvement in a 2003 general rate case.2 As a result, CAP AI
expanded its effort substatially in ths proceedg and incured costs commensurte with those
expanded efforts.
Though ths petition is limted to this proceeding, an understding of the greater context
in which it was fied and processed is helpfu to assess the reasnableness of costs incured by
CAP AI. Although CAP AI was aware that RM, Idao Power, and A VISTA intended to fie
general rate cases earlier ths year, it did not anticipate the natue of Rocky Mountan's fiing in
Case No. PAC-E-11-13 in which RM, among other thgs, called into question the cost-
effectiveness of its own low-income weathenztion progr. More specifically, CAP AI did not
anticipate the frg ofRM's application in Case PAC-E-11-13 and the results of the study
fied in support of the application (especially considenng that the Commssion had doubled
fuding for the progr just months earlier), but was imediately concerned over what it
i Case No. PAC-E-ll-13.
2 Case No. IPC-E-03-13.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 3
correctly predicted would result in a "domio effect" by which the LIW A progrs of not only
RMP, but Idaho Power and AVISTA as well would be cast into doubt by implication as a result
of RM's 11-13 filing.
Because of its long-held belief tht the Commssion ha considered relative panty in
fuding between the electrc LIW A progrs to be an importt objective and pnnciple, and for
a vanety of other reasons, it became imediately apparnt to CAP AI last spnng that intervention
in all the electrc rate cass was amply waranted, parcularly if the RM 11-13 filing had the
anticipated effect tht it did on the pendig rate cases. The RM 11-13 filing, paricularly the
timing of that filing, created a much more complex dynamc than would otherwse have existed
and had the effect of compounding, rather than reducing, CAP AI's costs for each case it
intervened in.
The challenge for CAP AI was heightened when Sta and all other paries agreed to settle
both the RM and Idaho Power rate cases before CAP AI even had the opportty to conduct
discovery. CAPAI did join the AVISTA settlement because of tht utility's LIWA fuding level
and other concessions it agreed to for its low-income cusomers. But with respect to the
remaig two electrc rate caes, CAP AI believed it was in a position where the staes had been
substatially raised and the circumstaces compelled CAP AI to reject settlement and tae its
involvement to a higher level and broader scope than in pnor interventions.
Unforttely, the simultaeous pendency of multiple cases did not create synergies in
terms of the effort and costs invested in ths ca by CAP AI and its representatives in ths and the
other cases mentioned, but actuly increased those efforts and costs. Ths is due to the unque
interrelationship between the cases regarding low-income issues and the fact tht any action
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 4
taken, strategy formulated or decision made by CAP AI and other pares in any of the pending
cases, had a complex and unpredictable npple effect on the other cases.
Regarding the scope and depth of its involvement in ths cas, CAP AI stved not to offer
expert opinons on issues such as revenue requiement, rate of retu rate sprea or rate design,
but to discuss those issues frm the perspective of many cusomers, low-income and non-Iow-
income alike. CAP AI is concerned that many customers car a perception that there curently is
a trend in which utilities file general rate caes nearly every yea seekig increases greater th
they are likely to receive, enter into an expeted and settement process not open to the public,
then seemigly make substatial compromise by reducing their requests to a more reasonable
leveL.
As noted in the testimony ofTen Ottens RM in paricular has engaged in a pattern of
filing general rate cases every year. Ths pattrn appear likely to continue into the indefinite
futue. For example, RMP ha filed general rate cases in 2005,2007,2008,2009,2010 and
2011. Though the settlement agreement reached in ths case covers two years, it provides RM
roughy the entie 15% increase it requested in ths case. There is every reasn to believe that
RM will simply file another rate cases sometime in mid-20l3 seekig a 2014 general rate
increase, and the pattern will continue.
Another concern, and parial basis for CAP AI's decision not to join the settlement, is
what CAP AI perceives as the recurent acceptace by Sta and other paries of "black box"
settlements which, from the perspective of low-income customers, is a secretive process resulting
in a customer base that is largely unormed as to the reasons for anua rate increases. In fact,
the RM settlement does not state any paricular rate of retu, and does not even provide a
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 5
revenue requiement increase. It simply provides for a 15% rate increase over the next two
years.
Regardig issues most ditly afecting low-income cusomers, CAP AI notes that low-
income customers generaly have less abilty to control their energy consumption and bils and
that a low-income weathenzation program presents one of the few mean in which they have
some degree of control over. Without an increase in ths case to RM's LIWA progr fuding,
CAP AI argues, there is no offset to incessat rate increases which disproportionately afect the
most vulnerable segment of RM's customer base. Ths lack of what CAP AI ha urged is a fair,
just and reasnable means of softenig the blow of the requested rate incrase was ultimately the
pnmar reason that CAP AI could not justif joinng in the settement.
Regarding RM's LIW A fuding, CAP AI offers a companson of the fuding of LIW A
progrs for RM, Idao Power and A VISTA. Ms. Ottens attempts to do ths through a per
capita fuding companson that divides tota LIW A fuding by the number of residential
customers for each of the thee utilities. Oter paries either reject CAP AI's companson in
pnnciple, cnticize its accuracy without offenng any specific alterntive, or took no position at all
on the issue recmmendig tht the mattr be deferred pendig the outcome of non-specific
"workshops." Based on Ms. Otens' calculations, CAP AI recommends that the Commssion
order a fuding increase to RM of $77,516.00.
Regarding the issue of contiued fuding for RM's low-income conservation program,
an unesolved issue from RM's 2010 genera rate case, the Commssion stted an expectation in
this proceeding. RMP has expressed a willingness to fuer discuss contiuation of the program
based on fuer discussions between the Company and the Communty Action Agencies as to
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 6
their respective need and capacity for the progr. CAP AI agrees that ths is a reasonable
approach to resolvig the issue.
Whle CAP AI's involvement and positions taen in ths proceeding might have put it
somewhat on its own CAP AI believes they were an essential counterpoint to the prevailing
settlement and positions of the signatory pares. Regardless of the Commssion's ultiate
decision in this case, CAP AI represented a signficant group of customers and offered a different
perspective that hopefuly contrbuted to the Commission's decision.
Regarding the costs set fort in Exhbit A, CAP AI notes that it ha extemely limited
fiancial means for involvement before the PUC. Furermore, it pays its representatives as
costs are incured. Because of ths, CAP AI's legal counel and expert witness have pnced their
services at rates substatially less th market rates for their respective fields and levels of
expenence. Furhermore, these fees have increased only slightly, if at all, over roughy the past
eight year since CAPAI's fit intervention before ths Commssion.3 Finly, CAPAI also goes
to considerable lengt to minmie its costs not related to legal or expert assistace.
CAP AI respetfuly submits tht ths results in intervenor fudig petitions that are
modest under the circumstaces. CAP AI submits, therefore, tht the costs and fees incured in
this case, and set fort in Exhbit "A," are reasnable in amount.
(04) Explanation of Cost Statement
CAP AI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of povert thoughout Idao. CAP AI's fuding for any given effort might come
from a different vanety of sources, including governenta. CAP AI does not have
"memberships" and, therefore, does not receive member contrbutions of any kid. Many of
CAP AI's fuding sources are unpredictable and impose conditions or limtations on the scope
3 Case No. IPC-E-03-13.
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 7
and natue of work eligible for fuding. CAP AI, therefore, has relatively little "discretiona"
fuds available for all projects. Some matters before ths Commssion, fuermore, do not
quaify for interenor fuding by virte of their natue.
Thus, were it not for the availabilty of intervenor fuds and past awards by this
Commssion, CAP AI would not be able to parcipate in cases before this Commssion
representing an importt and otherwse unepresented segment of reguated public utilty
customers. Even with intervenor fuding, parcipation in Commission cases constitutes a
signficant financial hadship because CAP AI mus pay its expenses as they are incured, not if
and when intervenor fudig becomes available.
Intervenor fudig is the only meas by which CAP AI has been and will continue to be
able to parcipate in proceedings before ths Commssion and represent the interests of a
signficant number of importt utilty customers who otherwse do not have a voice.
(05) Statement of Diference
There are matenal and substatial differences in the positions taen by CAP AI and the
Commssion Sta. CAP AI opposes the proposed settlement, proposes increasing LIW A fuding
and proposes increaing that fuding now, as oppose to engagi in futue workshops.
(06) Statement of Recommendation
CAP AI asserts that all cost-effective DSM programs ar in the best interests of the
general body of any reguated public utility. RM's LIW A progra is no different in that
respect. CAP AI is confdent tht LIW A is and will continue to prove to be a cost-effective DSM
program benefittg all RM ratepayers. Low-income DSM provides an additional benefit to all
customers because of the many non-energy benefits resulting from the program such as reduced
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 8
arearages, reduced debt collection and bad debt wnte-offs, and improving cash flow. These
benefits result in lower rates for all other customers.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent tht CAPAI represents a specific RM Power customer class, it is the
residential class.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ths 23rd day of December, 2011.
cck~~)Biid M. Pudy
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby cerify that on the 23rd day of December, 2011 I served a copy
of the foregoing document on the following by electronic mail and U.S. postage, fit class, pre-
paid.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
ted. westonCiacificorp.com
Danel E. Solander
Rocky Mounta Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
daniel.solander~pacificorp.com
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
dataeguest~pacificorp.com
NeilPnce
Deputy Attorney Genera
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
472 W, Washington (83702)
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
neil.pnce~puc.idaho. gov
Randall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nyc, Budge & Bailey
201 E. Center
PO Box 1391
Pocatello, il 83204-1391
E-Mail: rcb(fracinelaw.net
Brubaker & Associates
16690 Swingley Ridge Rd., # 140
Chesterfeld, MO 63017
bco Ilins(fconsultbai .com
James R. Smith
Monsato Company
P.O. Box 816
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 10
Soda Spnngs, ID 83276
Jîm.r .smîth(ßmonsanto.com
Eric L. Olsen
ASSOCIATION, INC: Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
(Exhibit Nos. 30 1-400) 201 E. Center
PO Box 1391
Pocatello,ID 83204-1391
elo(fracinelaw.net
Anthony Yanel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Vilage, OH 44140
tony(f,yankeL.net
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
Boise,ID 83702
botto(ßidahoconservation.org
Ronald Willams
Wiliams Bradbur, P.C.
1015 W. Hays St.
Boise, il 83702
ron(fwilliamsbradbury.com
Don Schoenbeck
RCS, Inc.
900 Washington St., Suite 780
Vancouver, WA 98660
dws(fr-c-s-inc.com
Tim Buller
Agnum, Inc.
3010 Conda Rd.
Soda Spnngs, ID 83276
TBuller(ßagrum.com
DATED, ths 23rd day of December, 2011.
ß~
Bra M. Pudy
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 11
EXHBIT "A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postae $562.00
Total Costs $562.00
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Pudy -159.00 hour ~ $130.00/h.) $20,670.00
Expert Witness (Ten Otns - 60.0 hour ~ $50.00/h.) $3,000.00
Total Fees $23,670.00
Total Expenses $24,232.00
CAP AI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 12