20080822Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSIONER SMITH
CO MMISSI 0 NER KEMPTON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM:SCOTT WOODBURY AND KRISTINE SASSER
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
DATE:AUGUST 21 , 2008
SUBJECT:CASE NOS. A VU-08-01lA VU-08-01 (Avista)
GENERAL RATE CASE - LATE INTERVENTION FILING
On April 3, 2008, Avista filed an Application with the Commission for authority to
increase the Company s general rates for electric and natural gas service in Idaho. A Notice of
Application and Notice of Intervention Deadline was issued by the Commission on April 16
2008 , setting a May 9, 2008, deadline for intervention. Two parties timely filed for (and were
granted) intervention - Potlatch and CAP AI. Workshops were held in Moscow and Coeur
d' Alene on July 24 and 25 , respectively. A settlement conference was held on July 31 , 2008
wherein all parties to the case were present and participated. Pursuant to settlement discussions
the parties entered into a Stipulation and negotiated settlement that purported to resolve all issues
raised in this proceeding. Thereafter, on August 12, 2008, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Settlement. Bennett Forest Industries, Inc. (Bennett Forest), an electric customer
taking service under Schedule 25 , filed its Petition to Intervene on August 18, 2008.
THE REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION
Bennett Forest seeks to intervene in order to participate in the August 28 , 2008
technical hearing and the filing of comments. It claims that customers taking service under
Schedule 25 were not represented in the discussions and negotiations leading to the Settlement
Stipulation. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bennett Forest calculates an increase in
the cost of its electric service of approximately $200 000 a year. Although Bennett Forest does
not anticipate introducing any testimony at the hearing, it seeks the opportunity to ask clarifying
questions on cross-examination of witnesses supporting the Settlement Stipulation.
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Bennett Forest acknowledges that its petition is untimely. It claims that unfamiliarity
with Commission procedure left Bennett Forest unaware of its right to participate. However
Bennett Forest asserts that a grant of its Petition to Intervene will not cause disruption of the
existing schedule, nor will it result in prejudice to existing parties or cause an undue broadening
of the issues. Further, Bennett Forest claims a direct and substantial interest in this proceeding
based on its annual consumption of approximately 24.6 million kWh of electrical energy at a cost
of over $1 million.
Answer of A vista
Avista filed an Answer to Bennett Forest's petition on August 20 , 2008. Avista
points out that Bennett Forest was provided ample, well-publicized notice of the Company
filing. Moreover, Avista points out that Potlatch, as an intervenor and party to the case, was
present for settlement discussions and does, in fact, have two customer accounts taking service
under Schedule 25. Ultimately, Avista urges that, should Bennett Forest's late request for
intervention be granted, the Commission condition such intervention in a way that will not
broaden the issues, disrupt the process, or otherwise prejudice existing parties.
Answer of Commission Staff
Staff filed an answer to Bennett Forest's petition on August 21 , 2008. Staff agrees
and concurs with the representations and positions set forth by A vista in its answer to Bennett
Forest's petition. Staff is concerned with "clarifying questions" becoming an opportunity for
Bennett Forest to engage in discovery weeks after the deadline for production requests has
expired (July 29). Staff recommends that Bennett Forest's questions be circumscribed and the
parties be given latitude to object to what they believe to be improper questions.
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission wish to grant Bennett Forest's late-filed Petition to
Intervene?
2. Does the Commission wish to restrict the parameters of Bennett Forest's
participation based on the following criteria:
a. Bennett Forest will not seek to introduce testimony at the technical
hearing;
b. Bennett Forest may ask clarifying questions on cross-examination of
witnesses supporting the settlement Stipulation to aid in preparing written
comments by the September 5, 2008, deadline;
DECISION MEMORANDUM
c. Bennett Forest understands that it is bound by all Orders and Notices
previously entered by the Commission;
d. Bennett Forest will not seek to alter or modify prior Order and Notices;
and
e. Bennett Forest pledges that its participation will not cause disruption of
the existing schedule, nor will it result in prejudice to existing parties or an
undue broadening of the issues.
Y. ~l\lA
KriS
;O)
Deputy Attorney General
M:AVU-O8-01 AVU-O8-01 ks
DECISION MEMORANDUM