20131106Supplemental Petition.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attomey at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17n St.
Boise,lD. 83702
(208) 384-12e9
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Intervenor
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
IN TITE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOT]NTAIN
POWER TO INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH
INTERESTED PARTIES ON ALTERNATIVE
RATE PLAII PROPOSALS
il!r!:i,'t*, ;. lll: lli
CASE NO. PAC-8.13.04
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION
OF IDAHO'S SUPPLEMENT TO
PETITION FOR INTERYENOR
FUNDING
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMI/ilSSION
COMES NOW, the Community Action Parhaership Association of Idaho and, pursuant to
the Commission's Final Order No. 32910 issued on October 24,2013 in this case, hereby submits
a Supplement to CAPAI's Petition for Intervenor Funding previously filed in this matter.
CAPAI has always itemized its expenses into the specific categories stated in Rule
162(01) which include: "legal fees, witness fees, or reproduction fees." CAPAI's attorney had no
foreknowledge or reason to segregate his hours into the categories listed in the Commission's
Final Order but has carefully scrutinized his timesheets and done his very best to make the
requested allocation into the seven categories listed in Order No. 32910 as follows: l) reviewing
and investigating the Application;2) discovery; 3) participating in the settlement conferences; 4)
the discovery dispute (Motion to Compel); 5) witness/hearing preparation; 6) the hearing, and; 7)
preparing the intervenor funding petition and reply. See, Order 32910 at p. 14. Finally, CAPAI
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
accepts the Commission's option of breaking out total funding hours (and associated expenses)
on a percentage basis. See, Id.
It is not CAPAI's intention to reargue a case already decided by the Commission in this
Supplement. Rather, CAPAI simply attempts to provide the Commission with greater insight
into how CAPAI's objectives and areas of interest and concern led to the expenditure of time by
its legal counsel, the billing practices of CAPAI's legal counsel, CAPAI's budgetary limitations,
and how all of the foregoing affected and account for the total hours invested in this case.
Each of the category headings below contain the percentage of hours invested in that
category in relation to the total hours included in CAPAI's funding petition.
1. Reviewing and investigating the Applicttion:260/o
CAPAI's attorney, with the assistance of its expert witness Christina Zamor4 for whom
no funding recovery was sought, spent approximately 20% of his time reviewing and
investigating the Application. The amount of time spent on this task was relatively higher than
otler, more traditional, rate cases due to the unusual nature of the Company's frling and the fact
that CAPAI did not have the benefit of the information discussed during the pre-filing meeting(s)
or conference(s) that took place.
Rocky Mountain did not disseminate anything in writing to CAPAI prior to the first
settlement conference (in time such that CAPAI could review it), that shed any light on the
specifics of what had already been discussed by select parties and of what the Company was
hoping to achieve in this case, as well as the "alternative procedure" to be employed.
Thus, in order to not go into the settlement conferences blind, CAPAI's legal counsel
invested considerable time in attempting to review and investigate what has been referred to as
an "unprecedented" filing through, among other means, numerous contacts with individuals
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
involved in this proceeding, including representatives of the majority of parties, as well as
individuals outside the state who might have encountered a similar filing by PacifiCorp or any
other regulated utility. Legal research was also conducted to assess the procedural issues that
were ultimately raised and to determine whether there were any past Commission cases and final
orders involving an electric general rate case and that were in any respect similar to the
Application filed in this case.
2. Discoveryz 8"/"
First, because the Commission identified "discovery dispute" as a separate category
distinct from "discovery," this second category is limited to the expenses incurred in acfually
drafting and submitting discovery responses and nothing more. Although a contentious
discovery dispute resulted in relation to one subpart of one discovery request out of six submitted
by CAPAI to Rocky Mountain, the Company did respond without objection to the remaining
requests.
Second, CAPAI was the only party who expressed any interest in analyzing the area of
residential rate design. During the first settlement conference, CAPAI explicitly articulated that
it was concerned about whether Rocky Mountain's existing rate design would produce a
settlement that was fair, just and reasonable to residential customers, particularly low-income.
CAPAI described in detail the nature of the information it would seek in this case including
model runs from Rocky Mountain Power showing how changes to the various components of
residential rate design would impact monthly bills for low-income customers. CAPAI noted that
it successfully obtained precisely the same information from Avista, through informal discovery
requests and that the identical discovery requests had been or were in the process of being
obtained from PacifiCorp's in that Company's pending general rate case in Washington.
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
After listening to CAPAI's detailed explanation of its interests, objectives, and concerns,
Rocky Mountain's senior executives suggested that CAPAI informally submit its discovery
requests to the Company (Mr. Ted Weston) via email, and that the information would be
promptly provided to facilitate settlement.
Third, because of the informal nature of the discovery process adopted during settlement
and because CAPAI had already made identical discovery requests in the Avista case and had
access to identical requests submitted in PacifiCorp's Washington case, the actual act of
duplicating these six already-prepared and available discovery requests and simply changing the
name of the utility before emailing them to Rocky Mountain constituted approximately 8% of
CAPAI's time.
3. Participating in the Settlement Conferences: l9o/"
For the reasons stated in subsection I above, CAPAI spent a relatively greater amount of
time preparing for and participating in the two settlement conferences conducted in this case.
The settlement conferences were the first and only opportunity CAPAI had to obtain a
meaningful understanding of Rocky Mountain's Application and the "alternative procedure" that
was purportedly being proposed.
Because CAPAI did not have foreknowledge of what had already been discussed prior to
the settlement conferences, those conferences took additional time both during the conference
and in terms of preparation and post-conference work as CAPAI further attempted to fully
understand the specifics of the ratemaking process that was being proposed and assess the
consequences of such proposals to Rocky Mountain's low-income residential customers.
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
In light of the foregoing, CAPAI estimates that the time it spent preparing for and
participating in the two settlement conferences comprised approximately l9% of the total hours
for which reimbursement is sought.
4. The Discovery Disputez l5o/o
The "discovery dispute" formally began relatively late in this case and was resolved just
days prior to hearing. The majority of work invested in the dispute, therefore, was also
performed late in the process. As the Commission is aware, CAPAI's available funding for
intervention in cases before this Commission is very limited and must compete against other
projects. CAPAI and its legal counsel must work within a budget cap for this and other projects
or cases. Furthermore, CAPAI has always paid its legal counsel and witresses, if any, before it
seeks reimbursement for these costs. Thus, it pays as it goes and must carry this expenditure
until such time that the Commission might provide reimbursement through intevenor funding.
CAPAI funds participation in Commission proceedings through a portion of its LIHEAP
funding, a source which has declined significantly in recent years. The budget for activities that
include PUC participation extends through September,2014, but is significantly depleted. This
presents a considerable challenge to CAPAI, particularly in light of the fact that Idaho Power
Company is expected to file its general rate case in the relatively near future. There is a very real
chance that CAPAI will not be financially capable of intervenring in that important case.
Because of these budgetary limitations and the many other demands on CAPAI's limited
resources, therefore, it is not uncommon for CAPAI's legal counsel to simply not bill for certain
tasks and to maintain a relatively low hourly rate considering his experience and the higfrly
specialized nature of utility law. Following the completion of the two settlement conferences
and Rocky Mountain's assurances that it would provide the same information that CAPAI had
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
obtained and/or was seeking from all electric utilities, it did not appear that this case would
consume a significant portion of CAPAI's available budget. As this case progressed, however,
and as promises, whether perceived or acfual, were not honored, it became apparent to CAPAI
and its legal counsel that the matter could consume more resources than originally predicted and
that CAPAI would either need to withdraw from the case, or its legal counsel would need to
work partially without compensation. To a certain extent, the latter option was exercised.
CAPAI's legal counsel maintains timesheets for all work performed, regardless of
whether it is ultimately billed and included in a funding petition. Legal Counsel has carefully
reviewed all work performed on the discovery dispute and determined that approximately 50Yo
of such work was not billed to CAPAI, was not paid to legal counsel, and was not included in
CAPAI's frrnding petition. The remaining50% was billed, paid, and included in the petition and
constitutes l5% of CAPAI's total hours and expenses sought in that petition.
5. Witness/Ilearing Preparationt 9oh
CAPAI rarely has the financial means to retain an expert witness and has historically
relied heavily on its Executive Director to serve as its expert witness for all aspects concerning
the impact of utility bills on low-income ratepayers and the means, or lack thereof, of such
customers to control their own consumption levels. This case was the first time that Ms. Zarnora
testified before the Commission. Thus, regardless of the nature of her testimony in this case and
whether one agrees with it or not, the amount of time spent preparing for hearing and preparing
CAPAI's only witness is relatively greater than would otherwise be expected of a witness
experienced in hearing procedure before the Commission including cross-examination. This
work constitutes 9% of CAPAI's total hours and expenses.
6. The Hearingz l9o/o
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FIjNDING PETITION
ln terms of time physically spent at the hearing itself, CAPAI obviously spent the same
hours as any other party who attended. In terms of hearing preparation and participation,
however, CAPAI was the only party who challenged the proposed settlement and presumably
invested far more hearing preparation time than perhaps other Intervenors who had joined the
settlement. The nature of work performed by CAPAI in preparation for and participation in
hearing includes, among other things, work related to cross-examination, the introduction of
exhibits, legal research in anticipation of objections, preparation of opening and closing
arguments, preparation for oral argument on motions, and numerous other tasks. CAPAI spent
19% of its time at hearing and for work performed in preparation of hearing.
7. Preparing the Intenenor Funding Petition and Reply: 4ol"
As stated, CAPAI only bills for work actually and already performed. Due to the
practicalities of preparing the funding petition, including last-minute changes and work done
after the petition is sent to the printers, a significant portion of the work involved in preparing
and filing the petition is not known in sufEcient time to include it in the frrnding amount.
Because CAPAI does not pad its funding amount to cover assumed or anticipated actual costs of
preparing the petition, a portion of work performed on the petition is inevitably not included nor
reimbursed.
Finally, intervenor funding petitions are relatively homogenous in terms of the
information required to be included in the petition pursuant to Procedural Rules 16l et seq. andit
is typical for CAPAI to utilize a standard form for funding petitions and then customize that form
to fit the particulars of the case at hand" In light of the foregoing, CAPAI invested
approximately 4o/o of its expenses in its Petition for Intervenor Funding.
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
Regarding the Reply to Rocky Mountain's objection to CAPAI's funding petition, CAPAI
notes that its petition for intervenor funding had already been filed by the time Rocky
Mountain's objection was filed. CAPAI's petition was never altered to seek additional amounts
related to its Reply to the objection. Thus, although CAPAI performed the work necessary to
prepare and file the Reply, it included no associated time or expense in its funding petition for
this task.
CONCUSION
As state4 CAPAI's legal counsel has invested considerable time and effort in carefully
and to the best of his ability, breaking out the percentage of work into the categories set forth by
the Commission in its Final Order. Though detailed in their nature, legal cotrnsel's timesheets
were not written in a manner that neatly segregates his work into the categories chosen by the
Commission and, therefore, required a certain degree of approximation and objective best
judgment by counsel to make such a calculation. In the event that the Commission desires
additional information, counsel is prepared to promptly respond to any such request.
DATED, this 6th day of November, 2013.
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
CERTINCATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certifr that on the 6th day of November, 2013, served a copy
of the foregoing document on the following by electonic mail and/or U.S. mail, first class
postage.
Ted Weston
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
ted.weston@pacifi coro. com
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 8411I
daniel.solander@pacifi com.com
Electronic Service Onlv:
Data Request Response Center
PacifiCorp
datarequest@pacifi corp. com
Neil Price
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W, Washington (837 02)
P0 Box 83720
Boise, lD 83720-0074
neil.price@f'uc. idaho. gov
Randall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nyc, Budge & Bailey
201E. Center
P0 Box 1391
Pocatello, D 83204 - 139 I
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Brubaker & Associates
16690 Swingley Ridge Rd., #140
Chesterfield, MO 63017
[e-mail]
James R. Smith
Monsanto Company
P.O. Box 816
Soda Springs,ID 83276
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FUNDING PETITION
J im. r. smith@.monsanto. com
Eric L. Olsen
ASSOCLATION, INC: Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
(ExhibitNos.30 l-400) 201 E. Center
P0 Box 1391
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
[e-mail]
Anthony Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village,O}{44140
ton),@.yankel.net
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6tr St.
Boise,ID 83702
botto@idahoconservation. org
Ronald Williams
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
l0l5 W. Hays St.
Boise,lD 83702
ron(@wi I I i am sbradbury.co m
Don Schoenbeck
RCS,Inc.
900 Washington St., Suite 780
Vancouver, WA 98660
[e-mail]
Tim Buller
Agrium,lnc.
3010 Conda Rd.
Soda Springs,ID 83276
[e-mail]
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
Box 1731
Boise,ID 83701
E-Mail: kmiller@,snalteriveralliance.org
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
CAPAI'S SUPPLEMENT TO INTERVENOR FT]NDING PETITION 10
472W. Washington St.
Boise,ID 83702
i ean j [e-mail]. gov
11CAPATS SUPPI-EMENT TO INTERVENOR FIJI{DING PETMON