20130913Comments.pdf

Comments of the Snake River Alliance
On Rocky Mountain Power's 2OL3 Application to lnitiate Discussigns$ittt.: f,ii f :: _jglnterested Parties on Alternative Rate Plan Proposals
September 13, 2OL3
INTRODUCTION
The Snake River Alliance appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments to the tdaho
Public Utilities Commission in docket PAC-E-13-04, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power's
Application to lnitiate Discussions with lnterested Parties on Alternative Rate Plan Proposals.
The Snake River Alliance is an ldaho-based non-profit organization, established in 1979to
address ldahoans'concerns about nuclear waste and safety issues. ln early 2OO7, the Alliance
expanded the scope of its mission by launching its Clean Energy Program. The Alliance's energy
work includes advocacy for renewable energy resources in ldaho; expanded energy efficiency,
demand response and other demand-side management programs offered by ldaho's regulated
utilities and the Bonneville Power Administration; and development of local, state, regional,
and national initiatives to advance sustainable energy policies.
The Alliance participated in al! settlement negotiations in this case, and has signed the
settlement agreement that is before the Commission. We believe the outcome of those
negotiations is in the best interests of the customers of Rocky Mountain Power's ldaho
customers. The Alliance appreciates and respects the spirit of cooperation on the part of all
parties in this case.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Not being represented by counsel in this case, the Alliance was prohibited from commenting on
the settlement and on related matters raised during the Sept. tt,2OL3, technical hearing.
However, the Alliance did provide oral comments during the course of settlement negotiations
about the proposed stipulation and also on the procedure that led to the stipulation. The
Alliance shares many of the concerns raised at the Sept. 11 meeting by the Community Action
Partnership of ldaho ICAPAI] as they pertain to the process in this case. Nothing in these
comments compromises Commission rules governing the confidential negotiations that led to
settlement in this case.
The Commission may recallthat in IPC-E-09-30, a similar issue arose in a case titled:
"Application of ldaho Power Company for an Accounting Order to Amortize Additional
Accumulated deferral lncome Tax Credits and an Order Approving a Rate Case Moratorium."
That case evolved into a rate case, and our concerns here are similar to the concerns we raised
in our comments submitted to the Commission on Dec. 22,2009, in IPC-E-09-30.
ln that case and in Commission Order 30978, the Commission took notice of the Alliance's
concerns and those expressed by CAPAI and the ldaho Conservation League. While SRA and lCL
both supported the settlement in IPC-E-09-30, both declined to sign the settlement agreement
due to concerns about the process that led up to it. As in this case, we supported the
settlement stipulation in IPC-E-09-30.
Commission Order 30978 referenced our concerns and those of our colleagues:
"lt is opparent the concerns obout the process orise only becouse meetings were
initioted, leoding to settlement discussions, prior to, rother than ofter, the time ldaho
Power filed o rote cose applicotion...
On this record, although it wos unusuol, the Commission connot find thot the process
was inadequate or improper. We encouroge the Compony, Stoff and others to be
inclusive in future discussions ond will not hesitate to require full evidentiary hearings if
we deem it necessory to ochieve brood participotion."
ln that case, what began as a seemingly obscure tax-related application blossomed into a full-
blown rate case that included negotiations among parties [including the Alliance] without an
application for a general rate case having been filed. We are in a similar situation here but with
a slight twist: A rate case settlement was agreed to not only without a utility filing a general
rate case application, but also without notice to the public that negotiations would occur. While
the outcome of the negotiations was in the Alliance's view favorable, the process that led to
that outcome was, in our view, deficient, as we pointed out in our comments to the
Commission at the time:
"The Allionce ond its members believe a docket of this significonce might hove been
better hondled through o more transparent process rother thon being limited to
meetings between the company and select customer groups. We oppreciote thot
settlements in generol rote coses ore generally preferable to protrocted ond expensive
formal proceedings. However, we find it somewhat owkword that a settlement was
reached in the absence of o filing and without the benefit of input from ony interested
party choosing to provide it."
The ldaho Conservation League expressed similar concerns in its comments that were also filed
with the PUC in IPC-E-09-30 on Dec. 22:
" lCL does not necessorily odvocote thot the Commission reject the opplicotion but seeks
clarification on when public notice and the opportunity for the public to participate
should be required. Specificolly, ICL questions how the decision on who could be o party
to these negotiotions os mode ond which IPUC Rules of Procedure opply to this
situation...
It is uncleor which IPUC Rules of Procedure apply to this situotion. IPUC Rules of
Procedure 271-280 govern settlements, but the rules only refer to 'settlements in formal
proceedings.' lf there wos no docket filed prior to the negotiations, is this o formol
proceeding? lf this is not o formal proceeding, which IPUC Rules of Procedure Apply?"
Commission Order No. 30978 does not specifically address the question posed by ICL above.
The Commission and its staff are in a difficult position in this case, but the Alliance agrees with
CAPAI's testimony that the events in this case, like those in the ldaho Power case referenced
above, may be a sign of a trend that is troublesome in that it may have the inadvertent effect of
reducing transparency in a case as important as this and also curtail public participation in
commenting on or even understanding some of the basic issues that led to a settlement.
As a signee to the settlement agreement and a party to this case, the Alliance finds itself in the
unusual position of being a public policy advocate that participated and agreed to a settlement
but due to Commission rules dealing with settlement negotiations cannot adequately explain to
its membership why it agreed to the settlement. The alternative - not participating in
negotiations - is not one that is realistic for an organization that represents public interests in
electric utility regulatory cases such as this.
The Allionce wos not invited to participote in negotiotions in this cose ond, like CAPAI, petitioned
to intervene only after learning thot such negotiotions were taking place. Like CAPAI, the
Alliance is growing increosingly concerned thot importont dockets such os rote coses ore
essentially being negotioted in o setting not accessible to utility customers, unless the
Commission chooses to occept oll interested customers to be porties in such a case. The Alliance
is not proposing that all rate cases [or dockets that morph into rate cases such as this one] be
litigated, and we acknowledge that the issues in this settlement are narrowly defined and that,
if this was a more transparent process, they might render this case a good candidate for
settlement negotiations. Litigating a case such as this poses significant financial and other
burdens on all parties, and to the extent that can be avoided, the Alliance believes it should be,
especially since PUC rules prohibit the Alliance from presenting testimony or evidence without
benefit of counsel.
The fact that the Applicant in this case essentially selected the parties with which it would try to
negotiate a settlement is problematic and is an issue that the Alliance believes requires
Commission attention and direction for future cases. The Commission has shown a
commitment to making its work and that of its staff more transparent, and we hope that trend
continues.
Regardless of how this case is titled, it is for all practical purposes a general rate case. Customer
rates wil! be impacted by its resolution and supply side resources will be constructed.
Settlement among parties in a rate case such as this was not been noticed to the public and the
public would have been prohibited from participating in any case. We agree with CAPAI's
argument in the Community Action Partnership Association of ldaho's Brief in Support of
Motion to Compelthat:
'The otypicol procedure odopted in this cose is troubling becouse there is no woy of
knowing to whot extent the public wos confused by this filing ond whether porties who
might otherwise hove intervened but chose not to believing thot this wos something
other thon o rote cose if, for no other reoson, than the coption of the Applicotion itself,
and the wording of the Notice of lntent ond Applicotion which would be interpreted in
nu m erous d iffe re nt woys."
The Alliance further agrees with CAPAI's argument in the same motion that:
"lt wos not until sometime ofter the Commission issued its Notice of Applicotion ond
Order No. 32767 that CAPAI even became owore thot the Company hod mode its filing
and, prior to thot filing, hod olreody discussed the substance of it with the Commission
Staff and o select group of the Compony's largest customer groups. CAPAI, the ldoho
Conservotion Leogue, ond the Snoke River Allionce have all been regulor intervenors in
PocifiCorp filings in recent years but were not listed in paragroph 4 of the Application os
hoving been involved in these prefilling discussions."
ln that same motion, CAPAI states that, and the Alliance agrees with:
'The Compony has never proffered ony explonotion of why it discussed the substance of
its rote cose filing with certain regular intervenors but not others. lt is very concerning
that substontive discussions were held between select groups of customers ond the
Commission 9taff..."
Conclusion
The Alliance is not suggesting that the Commission, its staff, or other parties engaged in
improper behavior in this case. As stated, the Alliance endorses the settlement agreement in
this case. Our concern is that the process that led to the agreement may be the beginning of a
proceduraltrend that, as experienced in this case and in the above-referenced 2009 ldaho
Power case before it, threatens to further remove the public and affected customers from
participating in a PUC case that directly affects their energy bills.
Any erosion of public engagement in utility regulatory matters is an issue of concern.
The Alliance understands and appreciates the need for confidential negotiations in certain
cases such as this. At the same time, even Commission Staff acknowledges that this case is
extraordinary in the manner in which it was processed. We recommend that the Commission
consider the circumstances and rules under which a case such as this will be processed in the
future. We acknowledge that public hearings were held in this case, as is required, but we ask
that the Commission consider reviewing the circumstances in which regulated utilities can seek
rate alterations and other Commission approvals without thorough and transparent public
participation.
Respectfully su bmitted,
Ken Miller
Clean Energy Program Director
Snake River Alliance
208344-9L6L
kmiller@sna keriveralliance.org
www.snakerivera I liance.org
Hand Delivered
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington St.
Boise, lD 83702
Bv Electronic Mail
Ted Weston
ldaho Regulatory Affairs Manager
Rocky Mountain Power
201S. Main, One Utah Center, 23'd Floor
salt Lake city, UT 84LlL
E-mail : ted.weston @pacificorp.com
Yvonne Hogle
Regulatory Council
Rocky Mountain Power
201S. Main, One Utah Center, 23'd Floor
salt Lake city, UT 84LtL
E-mail : Yvonne.hogle@ pacificorp.com
Brad M Purdy
[e-mail]
Benjamin Otto
ldaho Conservation League
botto @ i da hocon servatio n. o rg
Eric Olson
Racine Olson NYE ET AL
[e-mail]
Ronald Williams
Williams Bradbury PC
ron@williamsbradbu ry.com