The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20100827Comment (SRA).pdf~iiR- - ---~ ~ ..__~/. 'A SNAKE RIVER. rot:í.\/r:r; ALLIANCeE\)Ci', ~~. IOAHO'S NUCLEAR WATCHOOG. .1,.1 Hf'.. 21 PM 3: $9& CLEN ENERGY AOVOCAT9.\l\~ ~UO UT\~Rtr~¿:d~~X\SSiON August 27, 2010 TO: Jean Jewell Idaho Public Utilities Commission Secretary 472 West Washington Boise,ID 83702 I~ uL '-Q-to - ò i FROM: Ken Miller Snake River Alliance Ph: (208) 344-9161 Dear Ms. Jewell: Please accept the attached letters to Commissioners Redford, Kempton and Smith regarding a rule-making issue of interest to me and my employer, the Snake River Alliance. Kindest regards,~-r~ Ken Miler Clean Energy Program Director Snake River Alliance Box 1731 . Boise, ID 83701 (208) 344-9161 kmiler(fsnakeri veralliance.org ww.snakeriverallance.org www.snakeriveralliance.org Toll Free: 1.866.891.0178 Boise PO Box 1731 Boise, Idaho 83701 208.344.9161 voice 208.331.0885 fax Ketchum PO Box 4090 Ketchum, Idaho 83340 208.726.7081 voice Pocatello PO Box 425 Pocatello, Idaho 83204 208.235.7212 voice ~i'R- - - -: ~ ..__f 'd SNAKE RIVER\\!çn ALLIANCE-C£'\'~'"IDAHD'S NUCLEAR WATCHDDG 1 0t\ 3:59 & CLEAN ENERGY ADVDCAT1\\~ ~\jr; '2 \.., "'''. pqb)J"'~ K.\n¡\'J \\l t",P,;.J "":'i:~"'h\5~.1."¡.....\C S r:\)t:¡~l~' \Jl\L\1,~~'" ~ August 27,2010 TO: Idaho Public Utilities Commission Commissioner Mack Redford Commissioner Jim Kempton Commissioner Marsha Smith Don Howell, Director, Legal Division 472 West Washington Boise, ID 83702 RuL -ú.- lö'- ò f FROM: Ken Miler Snake River Alliance RE: Proposed Changes to IPUC Rule 43 Dear Commissioners Redford, Kempton, and Smith and Mr. Howell: On behalf of the Snake River Allance, I am writing to express my concern about a proposed rule regarding standards for paricipation in certain matters before the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. In paricular, we are concerned about the proposed change in Rule 43 (Representation of Paries) as it pertains to restrictions in paricipation in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings before the Commission. More precisely, we are concerned about the likely impacts, intended or otherwise, of the following proposed language: 04£: A municipal corporation; a state, federal, tribal, or local governent agency; an unincorporated association; a non-profit organization or other entity shall be represented by a licensed attorney. The Alliance understands the genesis of the proposed rule and the Commission's attempt to comply with recent Supreme Cour opinions. However, we believe the proposed change to Rule 43 goes beyond the court's intent inasmuch as it can disqualify vast segments ofIdaho's population from paricipating in administrative or quasi-judicial matters that affect them most intimately and that they take very seriously: The price they pay for utility costs that can present odious obligations and budget decisions. www.snakeriveralliance.org Toll Free: 1.866.891.0178 Boise PO Box 1731 Boise, Idaho 83701 208.344.9161 voice 208.331.0885 fax Ketchum PO Box 4090 Ketchum, Idaho 83340 208.726.7081 voice Pocatello PO Box 425 Pocatello, Idaho 83204 208.235.7212 voice The Allance does not question the intent ofthe Commission's proposed rule. Rather, we urge the Commission to rethink the language of this paricular rule and the ramifications it wil have on the ability of non-profit and public interest organizations such as the Snake River Alliance, which under this proposed rule would be excluded from paricipation in critical stages of cases before the Commission. The Allance represents many Idahoans who for obvious reasons are taking a greater interest in matters before the Commission. Many of them are frstrated by what they believe is an opaque system in which critical decisions are made out of public view. This is amply evident in at least two recent general rate cases involving Idaho Power and A vista Utilities that in the eyes of many were settled without benefit of adequate public paricipation. As the Commission knows, the Snake River Alliance paricipated in both of those cases. In the pending Avista general rate case (AVU-E-1O-01, 2) we were granted intervenor status and because of that we were able to paricipate in negotiations and we were able to submit comments, like all paries, on the proposed settlement stipulation. In the Idaho Power case (IPC-E-09-30) - which did not originate as a general rate case but which settled as such - the Alliance again was a participant but only because the Allance was invited to participate by the utilty by virtue of intervening in the prior general rate case. Even in that case, the Allance's paricipation was acknowledged in a Commission news release: One of the participants, the Snake River Alliance, said "the revenue sharing, PCA sharing, and rate case moratorium components of the settlement in this case serve the company and its customers as well as possible in our curent economic times." Examples of other dockets in which the Allance was accorded an opportunity to participate as a party include the CPCN for the Langley Gulch Power Plant (IPC-E-09- 03) and the Idaho Power S02 Allowances Revenue Allocation (IPC-E-07-18). Prior to joining the Alliance, I participated in dockets as the Idaho Energy Advocate for the NW Energy Coalition, which I currently chair. The Alliance is actively working to help its members and others better understand the workings of the Commission and to make them more comfortable in paricipating before the Commission in various forms. The Commission is aware that, while the Alliance is an active paricipant in electric cases, our requests to intervene in electric cases before the Commission are infrequent and the Commission has been generous in allowing such paricipation. Should the Commission preclude that participation in the future, the consequences may include: . The Allance wil no longer be entitled to participate in the heart of what has become a typical general rate case in Idaho. Such rate cases are increasingly being "pancaked" on an anual or nearly anual basis, and paries rightly pursue settlements whenever possible to avoid a prolonged contested proceeding. · It is becoming clear that critical issues in these rate cases are discussed and often resolved in negotiation sessions that are closed to the public. · While the public is accorded an opportunity to comment in public meetings and in written comments to the Commission, the second opportunity often comes after key parties have reached a settlement stipulation. Inasmuch as Idaho does not employ a public counselor consumer advocate to represent the.interests of the vast majority of utility customers (and we strongly believe it should), those interests are often represented by public interest organizations such as the Alliance. We are aware that some Commission staff consider staff to fulfill this critical role, but we are unconvinced that representation of the general customers is always staff s highest priority. In states that do employ public counselor a consumer advocate, such representation as an independent third pary proves invaluable. We believe it is asking too much of staff to serve multiple functions. Mindful of the Commission's need to comply with the Supreme Cour's ruling on these matters, the Allance is interested in finding a solution to the above issues. One possibility the Commission might consider is modifying its proposed rule by allowing the Commission to grant intervention status in the rare quasi-judicial proceedings such as those where the Alliance has requested it, but precluding the Alliance or other "non-profit organizations" from offering direct testimony or cross-examining witnesses. As the Commission knows, we are not attorneys and we rarely have a need to perform these functions. Our involvement is generally geared toward representing the interests of our members and other individual utility customers through encouraging such things as reforms in rate design, encouraging greater funding for low-income assistance and weatherization programs, evaluating cost-effectiveness of demand-side management programs, and the like. These are issues that are almost universally addressed or negotiated during settlement discussions and negotiations - not after a stipulation is reached and then through public comments. Entities such as the Allance that lack the resources to secure legal counsel could and should have the opportunity to engage as a pary in dockets such as a general rate case and in settlement discussions when they occur. In the overwhelming number of electric and gas cases before the Commission, the Allance believes that participating in public workshops or submitting written comments to the Commission sufficiently represents our position. We want to avoid prolonged contested rate cases and other matters as much as any pary that appears before the Commission, but we also believe that locking groups such as ours out of some of the most sensitive discussions in some of the most important cases before the Commission simply for our lack of ability to engage an attorney disadvantages our organization and those we represent. l For the above-stated reasons, the Alliance urges the Commission to reconsider the proposed language revisions contained in Rule 43. Should Commissioners determine a meeting to further discuss this matter would be helpful, we would be pleased to do so. Than you for your consideration of what, for my organization and the hundreds of Idahoans we represent, is a very serious matter. Kindest regards,~?n.~ Ken Miler Clean Energy Program Director Snake River Alliance Box 1731 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 344-9161 kmillerCfsnakeriverallance.org www.snakeriverallance.org # .