20180424CAPAI Petition for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
(208) 484-e980 (Cell)
bmpurdv@)hotmail.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION
OF AVISTA CORPORATION, IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES STAFF, AND COMMUNITY
ACTION PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION OF
IDAHO (CAPAD TO INCREASE LOW TNCOME
FUNDING TINDER TARIFF SCHEDULES 9I
AND 191.
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: AVU-E-18-02
AVU-G-18-01
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR
INTERVENOR FLINDING
I. INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code $ 6l-617A and Rules 16l-165 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165, petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the
above-captioned proceeding.
II. BACKGROUND
On March 21,2018, a Joint Petition was filed in the above-captioned case by Avista,
Commission Staffand Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) related to
the increase of Avista's funding to its Low Income Weatherization Assistance (LIWA) and
Conservation Education (Con-Ed) Programs. As noted in the Joint Petition, the present case was
filed as a result of the overall Avista general rate case (AVU-E-17-01) in which the parties
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 1
REC E IV ED
?il[E LPR 2h Pil 3:52
i-l: ,i'l '"U,lLlC
. ; i li_'l'i :,; :,-'r:Cizu{ilt iSSl0N
agreed in their settlement stipulation to address low income issues in a separate docket from the
general rate case; thus the Joint Petition at hand.
Following the filing of the Joint Petition in this proceeding, Staff, CAPAI, and the CAP
agency affected ("North Idaho CAP or "CAP"), began extensive analyses of Avista's LIWA and
Con-Ed programs. With the direct cooperation of CAP, Staff began analyzing the two programs
in question and traveled to Lewiston, the primary office of CAP, where Staff and CAP agency
members conducted thorough analyses and question and answer sessions for Staffto better
understand the manner in which CAP operates the two programs. Staff deeply scrutinizedthe
programs, engaged in meaningful conversations with CAP technical personnel, and examined
considerable amounts of data to gain a better understanding of how the programs were being
conducted to ensure that CAP was maximizing the effectiveness of the programs and the money
it received from utilities and other sources to operate them. In addition, Staff examined the need
for the program including how many homes are being weatherized per year under LIWA,
whether CAP could weatherize additional homes if given additional funding, and the backlog of
otherwise eligible homes.
Although Staff s comments, filed on April 10, 2018, speak for themselves, it is fair to say
that Staff invested considerable time and energy, leaving no stone unturned, to determine
whether the LIWA and Con-Ed programs were beneficial programs that not only served Avista's
most financially vulnerable customers, but returned benefits to the general body of ratepayers.
CAPAI fully supports the extensive work and analyses performed and the overall conclusion
reached by Staff and commends Staff for its hard and thorough work. CAPAI believes that the
meeting between Staff, Avista, and CAP proved to be of greater value than hoped for.
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
CAPAI subsequently had the opportunity to fully review Staff s comments and,
ultimately, felt that they were fair, accurate and needed no supplementation. Ultimately, Staff
recommended approval of funding increases as follows: LIWA: $125,00/yr. and Con-Ed:
$25,00O/yr.
CAPAI does not wish to restate or analyze Staff s comments, which speak for
themselves, but believes them to be thorough, fair and accurate. As Staff noted in its comments,
the end result of Staff s investigation is that the agreed upon outcome is a fair one. Staff further
noted in its April 10, 2018 comments, that CAPAI and Avista originally proposed different
funding level increases for the two programs but, ultimately, and after investigations and
negotiations, agreed to a reduced amount from their original proposals. Finally, it is CAP's
intention to take the input provided by Staff to maximize the programs as much as possible.
III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Rule 161 Requirements:
Avista is a regulated, electric and gas public utility with gross Idaho intrastate annual
revenues exceeding three million, frve hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirements:
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
Consistent with Rule 162(01) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, an itemized list of
all expenses incurred by CAPAI in this proceeding is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
(02) Statement of Proposed Findings
As noted in Staff s April 10, 201 comments, CAPAI and Avista initially proposed
specific funding increase amounts that exceed what they ultimately agreed to. The ultimate
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING J
proposal contained in the Joint Petition reflects the parties' agreement following considerable
analysis, effort and compromise.
Following Staff s thorough analysis of the programs in question, and with Avista's
involvement, the parties ultimately agreed upon the proposed increases of $125,000 for LIWA
and $25,000 for Con-Ed, annually. CAPAI proposes that the Commission adopt this highly
analyzed proposal and find the same to be fair, just and reasonable. As CAPAI has noted in
many cases over more than twenty years, there are system-wide benefits to all ratepayers
stemming from assistance to the poor that helps to maintain as customers, those who would
otherwise drop off the system due to their inability to pay their bills. The costs to all ratepayers
of this outcome has never been fully analyzed for Avista or likely any other public utility
regulated by this Commission, but CAPAI believes these consequential costs to be very real.
Perhaps the Commission will someday decide to order a calculation of the system-wide benefits
of keeping low income customers on the system.
Regardless, it is intuitive that assistance to the poor helps to reduce bad debt write-off of
accounts overdue, improve utilities' cash flow, reduce collection costs, and numerous other
expenses that would be incurred and likely never recovered if utilities lose customers due to their
inability to pay.
For these reasons, among others, CAPAI respectfully submits that the Commission
approve the Joint petitio., filed in this case.
(3) Statement Showing Costs:
CAPAVCAP fully participated in every aspect of this proceeding from start to finish and
provided input and asserted issues not raised by Staff and other parties. CAP made itself
available to meet with Staff in a productive and cooperative fashion to clarify any questions that
4CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Staff had regarding the two low income programs and to listen to any input Staff had to offer.
CAPAI's participation is summarized throughout this Petition, including in Exhibit "A." For the
reasons stated throughout this Petition, CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs it seeks to
recover as set forth in Exhibit A, are reasonable in amount.
The Commission well knows the financial limitations that CAPAI faces. For example,
CAPAI seldom can afford to retain an outside expert witness and does so only in particularly
technical proceedings. In the present case, CAPAI relied heavily on CAP and its personnel who
are involved in the implementation of LIWA and Con-Ed for all technical and policy aspects of
this case. In that and many other respects, CAPAI relied heavily upon CAP's Executive
Director, Lisa Stoddard, and CAP's technical expert Mark Fleming who has indispensable
knowledge regarding the two programs at issue. These were, effectively, CAPAI's experts in
this proceeding and the circumstances required that they put aside their otherwise daily duties to
attend to providing expert input into this proceeding and process. It is fair, therefore, to
characteize the interaction between Staff and CAP's experts as an expense to CAP in the sense
that their daily obligations were put aside to enable a meaningful interaction with Commission
Staff. CAPAI has historically requested an amount of intervenor funding that prices CAPAI's
executive director and legal counsel at a level less than market rates in any given case.
In fact, CAPAI's funding requests have always been less than market rates in any given
case, including the case at hand, whether pricing the value and cost of CAPAI's/CAP's
Executive Director, technical expert, or its legal counsel. In this regard, CAPAI notes that
counsel has nearly 3 decades of experience in public utility law, one of the more highly
specialized fields in the legal profession. Hourly rates for an attomey with commensurate
experience in such a specialized area of practice in this market are at least2-3 times what CAPAI
5CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
seeks for recovery in its intervenor funding requests. Furthermore, in the roughly fifteen years
that CAPAI's legal counsel has represented CAPAI in PUC proceedings, his rate has increased
only 2-3 times and, even then, the total increase over roughly eighteen years has been
approximately $ 50/hour.
Based on the foregoing, CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs incurred and requested
in this Petition are reasonable in amount.
(04) Explanation of Cost Statement
CAPAI is a non-profit corporation overseeing a number of agencies who fight the causes
and conditions of poverty throughout Idaho and has relatively little "discretionary" funds
available for all projects, including participating in IPUC proceedings. CAPAI notes that it has
no choice but to minimize its expenses and maximize the effect that its involvement has in
proceedings before the Commission in light of its limited financial resources for this type of
effort. Thus, CAPAI must adopt a resourceful approach using what limited resources that are at
its disposal.
CAPAI's sole source of funding to cover the initial costs of intervention before this
Commission is the LIHEAP program. CAPAI's LIHEAP budget is limited and its future
existence and levels are uncertain. In addition, CAPAI is subject to certain federal limitations in
terms of the manner in which it spends its LIHEAP funds. This, unfortunately, limits the scope
of issues that CAPAI is financially able to become involved in. Unlike certain other intervenors
before the Commission on a regular basis, CAPAI lacks the necessary funding to retain expert
witnesses to help present its case. In that regard, CAPAI must either rely on its Executive
Director, or the employee/experts of its agencies, such as CAP. In this case, CAPAI relied
heavily upon the efforts of CAP's Executive Director Lisa Stoddard, and technical expert Mark
6CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Fleming, both of who participated in the case at hand. It was through these individuals, who
took time away from their normal daily duties, that CAP was able to explain how it implements
Avista's LIWA and Con-Ed programs.
Finally, CAPAI has no monetary stake in the outcome of this or any other proceeding
before the Commission in the sense that it does not represent for-profit businesses or advocacy
groups representing industry interests. Rather, CAPAI is a non-profit voice for the low income
ratepayers of Avista and all other fully regulated utilities in Idaho.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funding and past awards by this
Commission, CAPAI would not be able to participate in IPUC cases representing an important
and otherwise unrepresented and growing segment of regulated public utility customers. Even
with intervenor funding, participation in Commission cases constitutes a significant financial
hardship because CAPAI must pay its expenses as they are incurred, not if and when intervenor
funding becomes available.
(05) Statement of Difference
As noted above, CAPAI and Avista each proposed an increase to LIWA/Con-Ed funding
in different amounts. Staff did not make a proposal until after it had conducted a thorough
analysis including a trip to Lewiston to meet with CAP personnel. Although the Joint Petitioners
in this case ultimately came to a settlement, the three parties all began with considerably
1
different positions in terms of funding increases for LIWA and Con-Ed.
Although this case was ultimately resolved through negotiations, the positions of CAPAI
and Staff were material going in to those negotiations and were not resolved until considerable
work had been conducted by all parties, and even then, only after negotiations. Thus, CAPAI
deeply appreciates the input that Staff and Avista have provided in this case, but respectfully
7CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
submits that they began with materially different positions and opinions prior to ultimately
agreeing upon a negotiated settlement.
Consequently, CAPAI's position differed materially from that of StafPs for purposes of
intervenor funding requirements.
(06) Statement of Recommendation
Avista's low income customers constitute a significant and increasing segment of the
Company's residential ratepayers. In today's increasingly challenging economic times, issues
affecting low income public utility ratepayers also become increasingly important. To the extent
that low income customers are unable to reduce their energy consumption due to limited
financial and other means and to the extent that the poor are most vulnerable to disconnection
due to inability to pay their bills, any measures to assist the Company's low income customers in
paying their bills both clearly and positively affects the general body of Avista's customers
through, among other things, the reduction of bad debt expense, collection costs, and the lost
revenue from customers who cannot afford to pay their electric bills.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAPAI represents a specific customer class of Avista, it is the
residential class.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 24thday of April,2018.
Brad M. Purdy
8CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FTINDING
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiff that on this 24th day of April,2078,I caused the foregoing document to
be served on the following via electronic service:
Avista Corporation
David Meyer
David.me),er@,avistacorp. com
Linda Gervais
Linda. gervai s@ avistacorp. com
W
Brandon Karpen
[e-mail]. gov
Stacey Donohue
S tac e y. do uohue @-B uqj daha.ga y
Diane Hanian
Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission+
d.holt(@puc.id.gov
9CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
EXHIBIT .6A'
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
CAPAI'S STATEMENT SHOWING COSTS
Case AVU-E-I8-02
Tasks performed during course of case: Brad M. Purdy.
Expense Categories
The categories of expenses and work performed are as follows Hrs.
Review of pleadings, comments, etc., and execution of Joint Petition.
Review of Commission Order(s) and Notice(s).
Review of Staff Comments.
Communications w/client and its experts.
Numerous meetings andlor telephone conferences w/other parties.
Communications w/other parties
Preparation for and participation in telephonic meeting w/Avista, Staff & CAP
10.0
1.0
3.5
6.0
7.0
5.4
5.7
Total Hours Worked - Brad M. Purdy 38.6
Total Hours worked at billable rate: 38.6 hrs. @ $150.00/hr.$5,790.00
Tasks performed during course of case: Lisa Stoddard and Mark Fleming.
[Experts Stoddard and Fleming performed basically the same tasks as CAPAI's attorney,
Brad M. Purdy. Their hours and hourly rates are as follows:]
Lisa Stoddard 5 hrs. @ $60.42
26 hrs. @547.98
$302.1 0
Mark Fleming $1,247.48
Total fees for Brad M. Purdy, Lisa Stoddard & Mark Fleming:$7,339.58
Copies, postage & miscellaneous
TOTAL FEES & COSTS:
$4s.00
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
$7,384.58
l0