20111214Application for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
BarNo. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
bmpurdy(ßhotmail.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Communty Action Parership
Association of Idaho
HECE E
2011 DEC 14 Pr1 4: 2 J
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITS COMMSSION
IN THE MATTER OF TH APPLICATION OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER SEEKIG
AUTHORIZATION TO SUSPEND FUTU
PROGRA EVALUATIONS OF SCHEDULE 21,
LOW INCOME WEATHRITION SERVICES
FOR INCOME QUALIFYIG CUSTOMERS
)
) CASE NO. PAC-E-ll-13
)
) COMMTY ACTION
) PARTNRSHI ASSOCIA-
) TION OF IDAHO'S
) COMMNTS
)
)
COMES NOW, the Communty Action Parership Association ofIdao (CAP AI) and,
pursuat to Idaho Code § 61-617 A and Ru1es 161-165 of the Commssion's Ru1es of Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01, petitions ths Commssion for an award ofintervenor fuding in the above-
captioned proceedig.
Rule 161 Requirements:
Rocky Mounta Power Company (R or Company) is a reguated electrc public
utility with grss Idaho intrte anua revenues exceedig thee millon, five hundred
thousad dollar ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirments:
(01) Itemiz list of Expenses
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INRVENOR FUDING 1
Consistent with Ru1e 162(01) of the Commssion's Rules of Procedure, an itemied list of
all expenses incured by CAPAI in ths proceeding is atthed hereto as Exhbit "A." CAPAI
seeks tota fudig of $16,845.00.
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
The proposed fidings and reommendations of CAP AI are set fort in CAP AI's detailed
comments, includg a lengty legal anysis, supported by the exhaustive 28 page analysis
performed by CAP AI's expert retaed for ths cae, Mr. Roger Colton.
CAP AI recommends th the Commssion accept the Company's application that its low-
income weathenzation program contiue to be included in its overal DSM portolio, but
recommends that the Commssion reject the application's request that the Company be relieved
from fuer cost-effectveness evaluations. Most of all, CAP AI recommends tht the
Commssion reject RM's contention that its LIW A progr is not cost-effective and that the
Commssion provide gudance to the paries in terms of how to properly evaluate LIWA in the
futue, including how to value the social benefits denved from the progr as well as the "non-
energy" benefits of LIW A such as reduce areares, reduce debt collection costs, improved
cash flow, etc.
Finlly, CAPAI recommends tht if the Commssion believes tht the inormtion already
provided by the pares does not fuly provide the Commssion with sufcient abilty to provide a
definitive cost-effectiveness evaluation technque, tht LIWA contiue to be considered cost-
effective and tht no "hold" be placed on futue fudig increas until ths issue is fully
resolved.
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INRVENOR FUNING 2
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAP AI submits that its requested costs are reasonable in amount. CAP AI intervened in
ths proceedig shortly after it was filed and pnor to a Notice of Application being issued.
Because of the landmark natu of ths case, the legal and pragmatic preicaent is created, the
consequences it theatened to have on all LIW A progrs in Idaho, and CAP AI's wish to satisfy
Staffs desire for gudance from the Commssion in evaluatig LIW A progr, CAP AI
paricipated in ths case on a level equa to or grater than a general rate case. Because RM's
application was facially support by a typ of anysis tht CAP AI's stff and reresentatives
were not capable of respondig to in ful, and because of the potential for ths case to undermne
nearly a decade of a substtial investment of tie and money by CAP AI in advocatg for low-
income interests and, fially, the because of the uncertty whether ths proceeding might
u1timately be converted into a formal cas or resu1t in a genenc proceeding reuinng an expert
witness in the field, CAP AI believed it essential to reta the servces of an expert, Mr. Roger
Colton, who is a nationally renowned expert in the field of evaluatig low-income programs.
The effort put into ths cas by CAP AI and its representatives is substatial and included
the normal tie and effort expended to become a form par to ths cas as well as engagig in
substatial discovery, parcipating in a webin with RM, Sta, and CADMUS, extensive
analysis of data and the compilation of comments and Mr. Colton's analysis.
Severa pnmar points were raised and addressed by CAP AI in the combined 45 pages of
commentsanalysis it fied in ths cas. The application effectively seeks a rug from the
Commission that LIW A is not cost-effective, but tht it should, nonetheless, be included as par
of the Company's overal DSM portolio and that RM be relieved of any futu obligation to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness ofLIWA.
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 3
To the extent not obvious, the maner in which RM fred and phred its application,
if accepted as proposed, cou1d well resu1t in a Commssion Order tht wou1d likely be unawf
and not withstad potential legal challenge; i.e., the Commission wou1d fid a DSM program to
not be cost-effective and, therefore, not prudent, but allow indefite continuation of that
program by simply including it in RM's overal DSM portolio requig ratepayers to pay for
it. In calling into question the wisdom of RM's application, CAP AI was clearly not merely
serving its own interests, but seekig to avoid a sitution that wou1d place the Commssion and
its Sta in an awkward position.
Thus, althoug CAPAI firmy believes tht LIWA is a cost-effective progr when
properly evaluated it avoided the arguble convenience of allowig RM to seek a formal ruling
that wou1d effectively imun LIW A from attck. Ths might have been the expedent thng
for CAP AI to do, but not a fai-mided position to tae. CAP AI was well aware of Stas
concern about ths, was deeply concered over the legality of the application as just discussed,
and legitimately believes that LIW A shou1d be subject to some maner of evaluation, so long as
it is reasonable and taes into account the unque chaactenstics and benefits of LIW A to not just
low-income, but all RM cusomers.
Though it is unortate tht CAP AI was effectively obligated to incur cost tht pushed
it so far ficially, CAP AI is confdent tht the efforts made by its reresentatives, including
Mr. Colton, will u1tiately aid Sta and the Commssion considerably in determg how to
evaluate a unquely desirble progr such as LIW A. The anysis offere by Mr. Colton is
such that so long as RM does a proper job of collectig the needed inormation in ty and
magntude, it shou1d not be diffcu1t to more accurtely assess LIW A from a cost-effectiveness
stadpoint using and valuig both non-energ and societa benefits.
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVEOR FUNING 4
In addition to the foregoing, CAP AI ha even greater involvement in ths case because of
the npple effect it ha had on other pending cas, includi the RM, Idaho Power and
A VISTA general rate cases either recently completed or stil pending. Because RMP's
application in ths case was filed fi CAP AI correcly prected tht RM's filing, flawed as it
is, wou1d resu1t in a hesitation on the par of Sta and perhaps other pares to not object to an
increase in LIW A fudig for the thee utilities. CAP AI was most concerned about Idao Power
and the fact that, as CAP AI determes it, tht utilty is fuding its W AQC program at a fraction
of the other two companes. CAP AI's predictions have proven accurte and the Commssion is
now being presented with widely disparte points of view on LIW A fudig, all as a diect result
of ths case.
It is unortate enough that a single filing by one utilty (who was obligated to file ths
case roughy a year ago) can cause such widespread disruption for the only low-income advocate
that reguarly appear before ths Commssion and, more importtly, for the segment of
customers it represents, but the half-heared natu in which RM went about providing its
contractor CADMUS with what Sta considers inufcient detaled data makes it worse. As
noted by both CAP AI's expert Roger Colton and Sta expert Staey Donohue, the technques
employed by CADMUS were not necessaly inappropnate, as far as they went. The problem
lies in what clearly was a miist effort by the Company to provide CADMUS with sufcient
information to legitimately render a meagf conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of
LIW A. The ficial and practical consequences to CAP AI Sta and the Commssion of this
are considerable. Because of the npple effect caused by RM's fiing and supporting report,
CAP AI's requid efforts in the pedig thee electrc rate caes was also increased, causing a
commensurte incree to cost in those caes as welL.
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 5
In its comments, CAP AI notes tht ths ca is unque not only in substce, but
procedure as well. CAP AI assumed tht Sta and RM wou1d desir tie to review Mr.
Colton's analysis, considenng that both Staff and CAP AI fied their comments by the same
deadline. CAP AI is uncert whether any fuer procedur steps might be deemed necessar
by the Commission. When CAP AI fied its comments, it recommended tht additiona time be
provided for the other pares to respond to CAP AI's comments and Mr. Colton's anysis and
that a deadline be set for that response. CAP AI recommended that the Commission then base its
fi determtion on tht record. CAP AI prepar ths petition as son as possible afer
learng that some maner of ruing might be imnent. CAP AI does not know if tht
determnation will order additiona action taen by the paries, possibly defer ruing pending
additional action or make ths a genenc proceeding, or completely and fially resolve all of the
issues rased durg ths cae in the near futu.
Regarding the costs set fort in Exhbit A, CAP AI notes that it normally relies upon the
expertise of Ms. Ten Otens who tyically testifies on beha of CAP AI. Ms. Oten's expertse
in low-income issues was relied upon to a lesser degree in ths cas, but still necssar to a
certn extent. Mr. Colton's fees ar relatively modest given his vast knowledge, expenence and
expertise in the precise field of evaluating the costs and benefits of low-income progrs as
evidenced by his resume fied with CAP AI's comments. CAP AI's legal representative charges a
reduced fee in light of CAP AI's limited budget. Tht fee has increased only modestly since
2003.
CAP AI respectfuly submits, therefore, that the costs and fees incured in ths case, and
set forth in Exhbit "A," are reasnable in amount.
(04) Explanation of Cost Statement
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 6
CAP AI is a non-profit corporation overeeing a numbe of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of povert thoughout Idaho. CAP AI's fudig 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
and natue of work eligible for fudig. CAP AI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionar"
fuds available for al projects. Some matters before ths Commssion, fuermore, do not
qualify for intervenor fudig by vie of their natu.
Thus, wer it not for the availabilty of intervenor fuds and pa awards by this
Commission, CAP AI would not be able to paicipate in cases before ths Commssion
representing an importt and otherwse unepresented segment of reguated public utilty
customers. Even with intervenor fudig, parcipation in Commssion cass constitutes a
signficant financial hadship becaus CAP AI mus pay its expenses as they are incured, not if
and when interenor fuding becomes available.
(05) Statement of Diference
There appe to be some degre of agrment between CAP AI and the Commssion
Sta in ths case, but there are also matenal differences. Sta recommends that workshops be
conducted at some futue date in order to fill in the holes in RM's evaluation in ths case.
CAP AI recommends tht LIW A not be afected by what CAP AI perceives as a flawed
evaluation and though CAP AI will willingly paricipate in any workshops conducted that involve
low-income progrs, it does not agee that ths proceedig shou1d cast into doubt the effcacy
and cost-effectiveness ofRM's LIWA or other low-income weathention progrs and shou1d
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 7
not be relied upon as a basis to not increas fudig for those progr where otherse
justified. To ths extent, there are matnal differences between CAP AI and Sta.
(06) Statement of Recommendation
CAP AI assert tht all cost-effective DSM progrs ar in the best interests of the
general body of any regulated public utility. RM's LIW A progr is no differet in tht
respect. Whle RM's filing might have temporarly cast doubt, in the minds of some, as to
LIW A's cost-effectiveness, the Commssion doubled fudig to LIW A ths very yea. CAP AI is
confdent that LIW A is and will continue to prove to be a cost-effective DSM progr
benefittng all RM ratepayers. Low-income DSM provides an additional benefit to all
customers because of the many non-energy benefits thoroughy anyzed in Mr. Colton's
analysis.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent tht CAP AI represents a specific RM Power customer class, it is the
residential class.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ths 14th day of December, 2011.
¡3~~
Brad M. Purdy
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNING 8
CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certfy tht on the 14th day of December, 2011, sered a copy
of the foregoing document on the followig by email and U.S. mal, first class postage.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mounta Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
ted. weston(ßpacificorp.com
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mounta Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
daniel. solander(ipacificorp. com
Neil Pnce
Idao Public Utilities Commssion
Deputy Attorney General
472 W. Washigton St.
Boise, ID 83702
nei1.price(ßpuc.idaho. gov
Jean Jewell
Commission Secreta
Idao Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washigton St.
Boise,ID 83702
jean. j ewell(ßpuc. idaho. gov
DATED, ths 14th day of December, 2011
~::cBra M. Pudy
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUING 9
EXHBIT" A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocpies/postage
Total Costs
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Pudy -63.00 hour ~ $130.001h.)
Expert Witness (Ten Ottns - 20.0 hour ~ $50.001h.)
Roger Colton (44.0 hr ~ $1701h.)
Tota Fees
Total Expenses
CAP AI APPLICATION FOR INTERVEOR FUNING
$175.00
$175.00
$8,190.00
$1,000.00
$7,480.00
$16,670.00
$16,845.00
10