20230831Final_Order_35909.pdf

ORDER NO. 35909 1
Service Date
August 31, 2023
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF AVISTA CORPORATION FOR THE AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES
AND CHARGES FOR ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
) )
) ) ) )
AVU-G-23-01
ORDER NO. 35909
On February 1, 2023, Avista Corporation (“Company”) filed an application
(“Application”) with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) requesting
authorization to increase its rates for both Electric and Natural Gas service. The Company
requested a September 1, 2023, effective date.
On February 21, 2023, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of
Intervention Deadline. Order No. 35684. Subsequently, the Commission granted intervention to
Clearwater Paper Corporation, Idaho Forest Group LLC, Walmart Inc., and the Idaho
Conservation League and NW Energy Coalition (“ICL/NWEC”) jointly. Order Nos. 35704, 35713,
and 35719.
On April 12, 2023, the Commission issued a Notice of Schedule, Notice of Virtual Public
Workshop, and Notice of Technical Hearing. Order No. 35736. The Commission set a June 14,
2023, Commission Staff (“Staff”) and Intervenor written testimony deadline, and a July 12, 2023,
Company Rebuttal written testimony deadline. Id.
On June 1, 2023, Staff, the Company, and all Intervenors participated in a settlement
conference. Based upon that settlement conference, on June 6, 2023, Staff requested that the
Commission vacate the deadlines for written testimony, and the Commission issued an Order
Vacating Testimony Deadlines. Order No. 35808.
On June 14, 2023, Staff and the Company filed a Stipulation and Settlement (“Proposed
Settlement”), and a Motion for Approval of Stipulation and Settlement (“Motion”). The Proposed
Settlement was signed by Staff, the Company, and intervenors Clearwater Paper Corporation,
Idaho Forest Group LLC, and Walmart Inc. (“Signing Parties”). Intervenors ICL/NWEC did not
sign the Proposed Settlement. The Motion requested that the Commission revise the procedural
schedule to set the deadline for filing testimony in support of, or in opposition to, the Proposed
ORDER NO. 35909 2
Settlement on July 12, 2023, and set a July 26, 2023, deadline for any rebuttal testimony by the
Signing Parties.
On July 6, 2023, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Settlement, Notice of
Amended Schedule, Notice of Customer Hearings, Notice of Technical Hearing, and Notice of
Public Comment Deadline. Order No. 35844. The Commission set an initial testimony filing date
of July 12, 2023, and a rebuttal testimony filing date of July 26, 2023. Id. The Commission
scheduled customer hearings in Lewiston and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, on July 25, 2023, and a
customer hearing in Sandpoint, Idaho, on July 26, 2023. The Commission also set a July 26, 2023,
deadline for public comments on the Proposed Settlement.
On July 25, 2023, the Commission held customer hearings in Lewiston and Coeur d’Alene,
Idaho. On July 26, 2023, the Commission held a customer hearing in Sandpoint, Idaho. On August
2, 2023, the Commission held a technical hearing on the Proposed Settlement.
TERMS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Under the Proposed Settlement, the Company would be allowed to implement revised tariff
schedules designed to increase annual electric base revenues by $22,134,000, or 8.03%, effective
September 1, 2023, and increase annual electric base revenues by $4,305,000, or 1.37%, effective
September 1, 2024. For natural gas, the Company would be allowed to increase annual natural gas
base revenue by $1,252,000, or 2.71%, effective September 1, 2023, and increase annual natural
gas base revenues $3,000, or 0.01%, effective September 1, 2024. Proposed Settlement at 3.
The Company would receive a 9.4% return on equity, with a 50.0% common equity ratio
with a capital structure and resulting rate of return as set forth below:

Id.
The Proposed Settlement sets forth the following tables of adjustments of the electric
revenue requirement components for Rate Year 1 and Rate Year 2.
Capital Weighted
Component Structure Cost Cost
Total Debt 50.00% 4.97% 2.49%
Common Equity 50.00% 9.40% 4.70%
Total 100.00%7.19%
ORDER NO. 35909 3

Id. at 3, 4, and 8.
The Proposed Settlement sets forth the following tables of adjustments of the natural gas
revenue requirement components for Rate Year 1 and Rate Year 2.
Revenue
Requirement Rate Base
Amount as Filed:37,462$ 1,034,938$
Adjustments:
a.)Cost of Capital (5,343)$
b.)Remove 2024 AMA Capital Additions (3,051)$ (17,554)$
c.)(2,062)$
d.)Remove Officer Incentives and 2023 Officer Labor Increases (418)$
e.)Remove 2024 Union and Non-Union Labor Increases (516)$
f.)Update Regulatory Assessment Fee and Conversion Factor (4)$
g.)Remove Pro Forma 401K Expenses (41)$
h.)Remove Escalated Miscellaneous O&M Expense (2,560)$
i.)Remove Pro Forma WRAP Expenses (121)$
j.)(500)$
k.)Adjust Pro Forma Insurance Expense (298)$
l.)(414)$ (59)$
Adjusted Amounts Effective September 1, 2021 22,134$ 1,017,325$
SUMMARY TABLE OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ELECTRIC REVENUE REQUIREMENT
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2023
(000s of Dollars)
Revenue
Requirement Rate Base
Rate Base Amount Effective September 1, 2023 1,017,325$
a.)
4,305$ 1,034,879$
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2024
(000s of Dollars)
Incremental Revenue Adjustment to September 1, 2023 Rate Change
(see Table No. 1):
September 1, 2024 Incremental Revenue Adjustment and Rate Base
Amount (above September 1, 2023 Rate Change - see Table No. 1)

ORDER NO. 35909 4

Id. at 10-11.
The Proposed Settlement provides information on the Power Cost Adjustment (“PCA”)
authorized level of Net Power Supply Expenses included in base rates. Id. at 13. The Signing
Parties agree to a revised system net power supply expense of $177,585,000. Id. The Signing
Parties agree to system transmission revenues of $23,471,000. Id. The Signing Parties agree that
the actual cost of the Chelan and the Columbia Basin contracts will be included in the PCA using
the lower of market cost or contract cost, and the Proposed Settlement sets forth the methodology
used. Id.
Revenue
Requirement Rate Base
Amount as Filed:2,771$ 206,562$
Adjustments:
a.)Cost of Capital (1,066)$
b.)Remove 2024 AMA Capital Additions (142)$ (2,978)$
c.)Remove Officer Incentives and 2023 Officer Labor Increases (98)$
d.)Remove 2024 Union and Non-Union Labor Increases (115)$
e.)Update Regulatory Assessment Fee and Conversion Factor (1)$
f.)Remove Pro Forma 401K Expenses (10)$
g.)(87)$
Adjusted Amounts Effective September 1, 2023 1,252$ 203,584$
SUMMARY TABLE OF ADJUSTMENTS TO NATURAL GAS REVENUE REQUIREMENT
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2023
(000s of Dollars)
Revenue
Requirement Rate Base
Rate Base Amount Effective September 1, 2024 203,584$
a.)
3$ 206,562$
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2024
(000s of Dollars)
Incremental Revenue Adjustment to September 1, 2023 Rate Change
(see Table No. 1):
September 1, 2024 Incremental Revenue Adjustment and Rate Base
Amount (above September 1, 2023 Rate Change - see Table No. 1)
SUMMARY TABLE OF ADJUSTMENTS TO NATURAL GAS REVENUE REQUIREMENT
ORDER NO. 35909 5
The Proposed Settlement provides information on the new level of baseline values for the
electric and natural gas Fixed Cost Adjustment Mechanism (“FCA”) resulting from the September
1, 2023, and September 1, 2024, settlement revenue requirements. Id. at 15.
The Proposed Settlement contains agreements including: (1) a Wildfire Resiliency Plan;
(2) a two-way Insurance Expense Balancing Account to defer the difference in actual insurance
expenses; (3) Regulatory Amortizations; (4) Revenue Normalization Adjustments; and (5)
Depreciation Rates. Id. at 16-17.
The Signing Parties do not agree on a cost-of-service methodology. Id. at 17. However, the
Signing Parties agree to the rate design changes proposed by the Company in Mr. Miller’s direct
testimony for the September 1, 2023, and September 1, 2024, base rate increases with two
exceptions. The basic charge for Schedule 31/32 will increase from $13.00 to $18.00 in Rate Year
1, and from $18.00 to $20.00 in Rate Year 2. Additionally, the primary voltage discount will
increase from $0.20 per kW to $0.30 per kW in Rate Year 1, and from $0.30 per kW to $0.40 per
kW in Rate Year 2 for all applicable rate schedules. Id. at 18.
The Proposed Settlement sets forth the following percentage change to electric service
schedules for Rate Year 1 and Rate Year 2.

Effective September 1, 2023 (Rate Year 1)
Rate Schedule
Increase in Base
Revenue
Increase in
Billing Revenue
Overall 8.0%8.7%
ORDER NO. 35909 6

Id. at 18-19.
The Proposed Settlement sets forth the following percentage change to natural gas service
schedules for Rate Year 1 and Rate Year 2.

Id. at 19.
Under the Proposed Settlement, the Company agrees to conduct a Primary Voltage
Discount study prior to its next general rate case filing. The purpose of the study is to inform the
proper Primary Voltage Discount levels in the Company’s next general rate case. Id. The Company
Effective September 1, 2024 (Rate Year 2)
Rate Schedule
Increase in Base
Revenue
Increase in
Billing Revenue
Overall 1.4%1.6%
Effective September 1, 2023 (Rate Year 1)
Increase in Increase in
Rate Schedule Margin Revenue Billing Revenue
Overall 2.7%1.2%
Effective September 1, 2024 (Rate Year 2)
Increase in Increase in
Rate Schedule Margin Revenue Billing Revenue
Overall 0.01%0.00%
ORDER NO. 35909 7
also agrees to evaluate the rate design of Schedule 111, including the minimum charge level, and
include any changes or modification in its next general rate case filing. Id. at 20.
If the Commission rejects any part or all of the Proposed Settlement, or imposes any
additional material conditions on its approval, each Signing Party reserves the right to withdraw
from the Proposed Settlement within fourteen days of the Commission’s order.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TESTIMONY
As of August 30, 2023, the Commission has received one hundred and two (102) public
written comments. Eighty-eight (88) of the comments were received prior to the Notice of
Proposed Settlement, and fourteen (14) of the comments were received after the Notice of
Proposed Settlement.
The majority of the comments are in opposition to the Company’s request for a rate
increase. Customers present issues including fixed income, inflation, taxes, corporate
compensation, the state of the economy, and other world issues that present financial hardships for
customers.
PARTY TESTIMONY
A. Staff Testimony
During the technical hearing, Staff witness Donn English presented testimony on the
Proposed Settlement. Mr. English provided testimony as to the Company’s original Application
and the process and procedure leading up to the filing of the Proposed Settlement. Tr. vol. IV, 204-
05.
Mr. English testified to Staff’s investigative process, and Staff’s approach when reviewing
the Company’s Application. Id. at 206-07. Mr. English explained that fifteen (15) Staff members
analyzed the Application including auditors, engineers, utility analysts, and consumer
investigators. Id. Mr. English further testified that five supervisors reviewed the results of all
analysis. Id. Mr. English explained that based on its investigation, Staff proposed twenty-one (21)
revenue requirement adjustments, of which twenty (20) were either completely or partially
accepted by the Company and incorporated into the Proposed Settlement. Id. at 207-09.
Mr. English testified that after a comprehensive review of the Application, a thorough audit
of the Company’s books and records, an analysis of the Company’s class cost of service study,
and extensive negotiations with the parties to the case, Staff supported the Proposed Settlement.
Id.
ORDER NO. 35909 8
Mr. English concluded that Staff believed the Proposed Settlement offers a reasonable
balance between the Company’s opportunity to earn a reasonable return on its investment and
affordable rates for customers, and that the Proposed Settlement is in the public interest; is fair,
just, and reasonable; and should be approved by the Commission. Id.
B. Company Testimony
During the technical hearing, Company witnesses Elizabeth Andrews and Patrick Ehrbar
presented testimony in support of the Proposed Settlement.
1. Andrews
Ms. Andrews provided testimony summarizing both the Company’s original Application
and Proposed Settlement. Id. at 47-55. Ms. Andrews also provided a detailed summary of both the
Electric and Gas Revenue Requirement Elements of the Proposed Settlement. Id. at 55-84. Finally,
Ms. Andrews provided testimony on the other components of the Proposed Settlement including
the Company’s Wildfire O&M Expense Balancing Account, Wildfire Resiliency Plan, Insurance
Expense Balancing Account, Regulatory Amortizations, Revenue Normalization Adjustments,
and the Depreciation Rates. Id. at 84-96.
Ms. Andrews concluded that the Proposed Settlement strikes a reasonable balance between
the interests of the Company and its customers, including its low-income customers and represents
a reasonable compromise among differing interests and points of view. Id. at 95.
2. Ehrbar
Mr. Ehrbar provided direct testimony to describe and support the non-revenue requirement
portions of the Proposed Settlement including Rate Spread and Rate Design, the PCA, and the
FCA. Id. at 162-77. Mr. Ehrbar also presented rebuttal testimony, related to the agreed-upon basic
charges, and to rebut ICL/NWEC witness Lauren McCloy’s prefiled direct testimony. Id. at 177.
Mr. Ehrbar testified that the proposed increases in the residential Schedule 1 and 101 basic charges:
(1) is not a wholesale conversion to straight fixed variable rate design; (2) is not prejudicial to
interests of low-income customers; and (3) will not detract from conservation efforts. Id. at 177-
81. As part of his testimony, Mr. Ehrbar also sponsored the prefiled direct testimony of Company
witness Joe Miller.

ORDER NO. 35909 9
C. Idaho Forest Group LLC Letter
On July 12, 2023, Idaho Forest Group LLC submitted a letter in lieu of testimony (“IFG
Letter”). The letter provides in relevant part:
IFG supports, and is a signatory to, the stipulation and settlement filed with the Commission on June 14, 2023 (“Settlement”). IFG respectfully requests that
the Commission approve the Settlement pursuant to the agreed upon terms and
will not be submitting direct testimony.
IFG Letter at 1.
D. Walmart Inc. Letter
On July 26, 2023, Walmart Inc. filed a letter in lieu of testimony (“Walmart Letter”). The
letter provides in relevant part:
Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”) submits this brief letter in response to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission’s (“Commission”) order dated July 6, 2023, and in
response to the Settlement Testimony in the above referenced matters. Walmart
respectfully requests that the Commission approve the stipulation and settlement filed with the Commission on June 14, 2023 (“Settlement”). Walmart will not be filing rebuttal testimony.
Walmart Letter at 1.
E. Idaho Conservation League and NW Energy Coalition Testimony
During the technical hearing, ICL/NWEC witness Brad Heusinkveld sponsored the
prefiled direct testimony of Lauren McCloy in opposition to the basic and fixed costs adjustments
in the Proposed Settlement.
Mr. Heusinkveld testified in opposition to specific elements of the Proposed Settlement
concerning the basic charge, or fixed charge. Tr. vol. IV, 259-60. Specifically, Mr. Heusinkveld
testified that the proposed changes to the basic charge are not in the public interest; that straight-
fixed variable rate design provides a negative price signal for energy efficiency and conservation;
that the proposed changes disproportionately impact lower-income and lower-usage customers;
and that straight-fixed variable rate design is a form of decoupling and is duplicative given the
Company’s FCA. Id. at 257-66.
Mr. Heusinkveld recommended that the Commission reject the increased basic charge rate
design portion and keep the customer charge at $7.00/month, or if the Commission accepted the
Proposed Settlement in whole, that the Commission should also require:
Avista to alter its cost-effectiveness calculation for energy efficiency to account for any decrease in participation in its DSM programs as a result of the increase in the customer charge. This could include instituting a 10% conservation preference
ORDER NO. 35909 10
adder as directed by the Northwest Power Act of 1980 in order to account for hard-to-quantify benefits of energy efficiency.
Require Avista to increase funding for low-income weatherization, and provide a
bill discount to help offset the increase in the customer charge for low-income customers.
Open an investigatory docket into the interplay between the high fixed charges and revenue decoupling.
Id. at 277-79.
POST-HEARING BRIEFS
At the conclusion of the technical hearing, the Commission granted all parties fourteen (14)
days to submit post-hearing briefs.
A. Company Brief
The Company argued that basic principles of cost causation supported an increase in the
basic charge. Company Brief at 3. Specifically, the Company contended:
The Company based the increases on detailed cost-of-service studies on fixed customer and distribution costs for electric and natural gas residential customers. Accordingly, the proposed increases rest on a solid foundation of cost causation. (Tr. at p. 181) A significant portion of the Company’s costs are fixed and do not vary with
customer usage. These costs include distribution plant and operating costs to provide reliable service to customers. For electric, the total customer allocated costs are $19.24 per customer per month. Factoring in distribution demand cost per customer per month of $23.84, the total customer and distribution demand monthly cost is $43.08. For natural gas, the total customer allocated costs are $21.96 per customer per month at
current rates. Factoring in distribution demand cost per customer per month of $7.56, the total customer and distribution demand monthly cost is $29.51. These are essentially fixed costs that are allocated based on the number of customers served.
Id.
Further, the Company contended that there is no evidence that low-income customers will
be harmed by an increase in the basic charge, and that an increase in the basic charge will not
diminish the incentive to pursue conservation. Id. at 5-6.
B. Idaho Conservation League and NW Energy Coalition Brief
ICL/NWEC recommended the Commission reject the provisions of the Proposed
Settlement increasing the basic charge from $7.00 per month to $20.00 per month over two years.
ICL/NWEC Brief at 1. ICL/NWEC argued that this increase to the basic charge is inconsistent
with the principle of cost causation, sends a negative price for energy efficiency and conservation,
and most disproportionately effects low-income and low-usage customers. Id. at 1-2. ICL/NWEC
ORDER NO. 35909 11
contended that the Commission has the authority to reject only the residential rate design
provisions within the Proposed Settlement. Id. at 2.
ICL/NWEC argued that the Signing Parties failed to meet their burden of proof showing
that an increase in the customer charge is in the public interest. Id. at 3. Specifically, ICL/NWEC
contended that: (1) the Signing Parties failed to prove that low energy users subsidize high energy
users; (2) the Company is allowed to recover additional fixed costs through volumetric charges
and no evidence exists that the Company is unable to recover its fixed costs; and (3) even if the
settling parties did prove that intraclass subsidization exists, there is no evidence in the record
indicating that such subsidization is not in the public interest. Id. at 3-6.
Further, ICL/NWEC argued that increasing the basic charge is not in the public interest
because it exacerbates resource adequacy issues by sending a negative price signal for energy
efficiency, and increasing the basic charge is not in the public interest because it most negatively
impacts low-income customers. Id. at 7-8.
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
As part of its post-hearing briefing, ICL/NWEC applied for Intervenor Funding
(“ICL/NWEC Application”). ICL/NWEC requested $9,005.75 of intervenor funding comprised of
expenses for the work done by F. Diego Rivas, attorney for NWEC, Marie Callaway Kellner,
attorney for ICL, Brad Heusinkveld, Energy Associate for ICL, and Lauren McCloy, witness for
ICL/NWEC. ICL/NWEC Application at 2.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over the Company’s Application and the issues in this
case under Title 61 of the Idaho Code including Idaho Code §§ 61-301 through 303. The
Commission is empowered to investigate rates, charges, rules, regulations, practices, and contracts
of all public utilities and to determine whether they are just, reasonable, preferential,
discriminatory, or in violation of any provisions of law, and to fix the same by order. Idaho Code
§§ 61-501 through 503.
In a general rates case, the Company’s intrastate revenue requirement, and every
component of it, both rate base and expense, are at issue. IDAPA 31.01.01.124.01. The
Commission may grant, deny, or modify the revenue requirement requested and may find a
revenue requirement different from that proposed by any party is just, fair, and reasonable. Id.
ORDER NO. 35909 12
The Company’s retail rates and charges, both recurring and non-recurring, including those
of special contract customers, are at issue, and every component of every existing and proposed
rate and charge is at issue. IDAPA 31.01.01.124.02. The Commission may approve, reject, or
modify the rates and charges proposed and may find that rates and charges different from those
proposed by any party are just, fair, and reasonable. Id.
The Commission’s process for considering settlement stipulations is set forth in its Rules
of Procedure 271-277, IDAPA 31.01.01.271-277. When a settlement is presented to the
Commission, it “will prescribe the procedures appropriate to the nature of the settlement to
consider the settlement.” IDAPA 31.01.01.274. Here, the Commission convened both a technical
hearing and customer hearing on the Settlement. IDAPA 31.01.01.274. Proponents of a proposed
settlement must show “that the settlement is reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in
accordance with law or regulatory policy.” IDAPA 31.01.01.275. The Commission is not bound
by settlement agreements. IDAPA 31.01.01.276. Instead, the Commission “will independently
review any settlement proposed to it to determine whether the settlement is just, fair and
reasonable, in the public interest, or otherwise in accordance with law or regulatory policy.” Id.
As the only provision of the Proposed Settlement in dispute between the parties, the
Commission shall first consider the specific provision concerning the proposed change to the basic
charge, and then the remaining general provisions of the Proposed Settlement.
A. Basic Charge
The Commission finds that the proposed change to the basic charge from $7.00 per month
to $20.00 per month over two years is fair, just, and reasonable. ICL/NWEC recommends the
Commission reject the proposed increase to the basic charge arguing that this increase to the basic
charge is inconsistent with the principle of cost causation, sends a negative price for energy
efficiency and conservation, and most disproportionately effects low-income and low-usage
customers. ICL/NWEC Brief at 1-2. The Commission disagrees.
The Commission is persuaded by the Company’s testimony on the average cost of service
for customers including distribution plant and operating costs to provide reliable service. The
Commission believes that accurately assigning costs is a fair component of rate design, and the
misalignment of costs can create revenue recovery distortions and give an incorrect perception of
the cost and value of the Company’s services. The proposed change to the basic charge is
ORDER NO. 35909 13
movement to ensure that all customers are paying a proper amount of the fixed costs required to
serve them.
The Commission believes that customers will likely see more levelized summer and winter
bills and that the changes provide the benefit of energy bill stabilization, which is an advantage for
budgeting and planning purposes for all customers. The Commission anticipates that because the
proposed increase in basic charge is coupled with a decrease in volumetric charges, the changes
will result in a reasonable impact on the average customer.
The Commission is sensitive to customer concerns with the potential impact of increasing
the basic charge; however, the Commission is not persuaded by ICL/NWEC’s claims that the
proposed changes will send a negative price signal for energy efficiency and conservation, and
disproportionately effect low-income and low-usage customers. Further, the Commission does not
believe that at this time any alteration is necessary to the Company’s cost-effectiveness calculation
for energy efficiency, nor is it necessary at this time to require the Company to increase funding
for low-income customers. Similarly, the Commission does not believe that it is necessary at this
time to open an investigatory docket into the interplay between the high fixed charges and revenue
decoupling.
For those reasons, the Commission finds the proposed change to the basic fair, just, and
reasonable.
B. General Provisions
The Commission has reviewed the record, including the Application, Proposed Settlement,
testimony, public comments, all submitted materials, and the arguments of the parties. The
Commission notes that the parties and the public have built a detailed record through discovery,
filings, negotiations, comments, and participation in hearings.
The Commission finds that the Proposed Settlement incorporates input from different
parties and customers, and the Proposed Settlement attempts to reach a balance between
customers’ desires for a smaller rate increase and the Company’s recovery of the costs it incurs to
provide safe and reliable service as well as an opportunity to earn a fair rate of return.
Among other things, the Proposed Settlement reduces the Company’s proposed first year
electric base revenue increase of $37.5 million, and natural gas base revenue increase of $2.8
million, to $22.1 million, and $1.25 million respectively. For year two, the Proposed Settlement
reduces the Company’s proposed electric base revenue increase of $13.2 million, and natural gas
ORDER NO. 35909 14
base revenue increase of $120,000, to $4.3 million, and $3,000 respectively. The Proposed
Settlement also provides for an ROE of 9.4% as opposed to the 10.25% requested in the
Application.
The Commission finds that the Proposed Settlement allows the Company to operate
sustainably while reducing the effects of the rate increase on customers, and the Proposed
Settlement represents a responsible approach to costs and rate design, while balancing the unique
circumstances of the Company and the challenges that higher energy costs pose for customers. The
Commission finds that the Proposed Settlement is fair, just, and reasonable.
C. Intervenor Funding
Intervenor funding is available pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure 161-165. Idaho Code § 61-617A(1) provides that it is
the “policy of this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the
commission so that all affected customers receive full and fair representation in those
proceedings.” The Commission may award a cumulative amount of intervenor funding not to
exceed $40,000 for all intervening parties in a single case. Idaho Code § 61-617A(2).
Commission Rule 162 provides the form and content of petitions for intervenor funding.
Each petition must contain: (1) an itemized list of expenses broken down into categories; (2) a
statement of the intervenor’s proposed findings or recommendation; (3) a statement showing that
the costs the intervenor wishes to recover are reasonable; (4) a statement explaining why the costs
constitute a significant financial hardship for the intervenor; (5) a statement showing how the
intervenor’s proposed recommendations differed materially from the testimony and exhibits of the
Staff; (6) a statement showing how the intervenor’s recommendation or position addressed issues
of concern to the general body of the utility users or consumers; and (7) a statement showing the
class of customer on whose behalf the intervenor appeared. IDAPA 31.01.01.162.
As part of its post-hearing briefing, ICL/NWEC submitted an application for Intervenor
Funding. ICL is a non-profit organization primarily funded through membership donations, private
grants, endowment fund revenue, and does not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of
this case distinct from an Avista ratepayer. ICL/NWEC Application at 4. NWEC represents over
one hundred (100) member organizations in the Northwest, including eleven in Idaho, to pursue
sustainable and equitable energy policy, and is funded through membership dues and individual
donations. Id.
ORDER NO. 35909 15
Based upon our review of the ICL/NWEC Application, the Commission finds that the
funding request comports with the procedural and substantive requirements of the statute and the
rules. ICL/NWEC have materially contributed to the Commission’s decision-making. Specifically,
ICL/NWEC opposed the proposed basic charge increase provision of the Proposed Settlement and
offered pertinent testimony regarding the proposed changes. The Commission finds that
ICL/NWEC’s participation added a unique and well-informed perspective to the record, and it is
fair, just, and reasonable to award intervenor funding.
However, the Commission cannot find that the requested amount of funding, $9,005.75, is
reasonable. ICL/NWEC claims that “ICL and NWEC jointly intervened to avoid duplicating
efforts.” Id. at 3. Based on its review of ICL/NWEC itemized list of expenses incurred, the
Commission finds significant duplication of effort between the work done by NWEC’s Attorney
F. Diego Rivas and ICL’s Energy Associate Brad Heusinkveld, and the Commission cannot find
Mr. Heusinkveld’s requested rate of $125 per hour is reasonable.
For those reasons, the Commission hereby limits Mr. Heusinkveld’s rate to $75 per hour,
which equates to a reduction in the total amount of intervenor funding of $1,550. With that
modification, the Commission finds it appropriate to award ICL/NWEC intervenor funding in the
amount of $7,455.75. The award shall be chargeable to the Electric Residential class. Idaho Code
§ 61-617A(3).
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Proposed Settlement is approved as filed. The
Company is authorized to implement revised tariff schedules consistent with the terms of the
Proposed Settlement, effective September 1, 2023.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ICL/NWEC’s Application for intervenor funding is
granted in the amount of $7,455.75.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date upon this Order regarding any
matter decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. Idaho Code §§ 61-626.

ORDER NO. 35909 16
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 31st day of
August 2023.

__________________________________________
ERIC ANDERSON, PRESIDENT
__________________________________________
JOHN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
__________________________________________
EDWARD LODGE, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

_________________________________ Jan Noriyuki Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\AVUE2301_G2301_Rates\orders\AVUEG2301_FO_cb.docx