20130320Petition for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17th St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
[phone] (Fax)
bmpurdy(hotmai1.com
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
RECEfl!
ZIH3 VAR 2O PM 3:53
TILIT
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) CASE NOS. AVU-E-12-08

OF AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA ) AVU-G-12-07
UTILITIES FOR AUTHORITY TO )

INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR ) COMMUNITY ACTION

ELECTRIC AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE ) PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATION
IN IDAHO ) OF IDAHO'S PETITION FOR

) INTERVENOR FUNDING
I. INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-617A and Rules 161-165 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.
H. BACKGROUND
Because this case was settled through confidential negotiations pursuant to IDAPA
31.01.01.272, CAPAI will not divulge anything discussed during the two settlement meetings
leading to the Settlement Stipulation, but wishes to describe, in general terms, the nature, scope
and extent of CAPAI's involvement in this proceeding for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of the procedural rules regarding intervenor funding.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
CAPAI often weighs in on more than low-income weatherization in general rate cases.
Its areas of interest and focus sometimes include cost of service and rate design, among other
things. CAPAI did not sign the Settlement Stipulation because the document was filed with the
Commission before CAPAI had ample opportunity to thoroughly analyze a number of issues of
considerable importance not just to low-income customers, but to the Company's entire
residential class. These issues centered primarily around rate design. Residential rate design
changes were not proposed or analyzed in the Settlement Stipulation or testimonies filed by
Avista and Staff. CAPAI endeavored in the course of this proceeding to obtain more accurate
and valuable low-income consumption data and to assess the impact that various rate designs
have on Avista's low-income residential customers.
In order to accomplish this objective, CAPAI worked with Avista and Staff to identify
and implement means to obtaining information that has been sparse, outdated and even non-
existent up until now; the consumption characteristics of actual low-income customers. Though
CAPAI has access to certain low-income utility data such as a small number of low-income
customer monthly electric bills, the utilities themselves are the best and sometimes only source
from which to obtain all the data necessary to more thoroughly understand the impact that
differing rate designs have on these customers.
For various reasons, utilities have not historically made much if any attempt to track low-
income data. Though customer confidentiality has historically been offered as a reason why such
data cannot be obtained and shared by the utilities, the fact is that low-income data can be
identified, collected, and shared by using LIHEAP recipients as a proxy, and cross-referencing
their addresses to identify households that are reasonably considered low-income and collect
their data. This raw data can then be shared with others without revealing the identities of the
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 2
individual customers. CAPAI respectfully submits that such data would not only assist CAPAI
in pursuit of its objectives, but better inform the Commission in reaching decisions regarding rate
design and other important issues.
Though the Settlement Stipulation includes no changes to Avista's residential class rate
design, this should not be construed to mean that this set of issues was not analyzed. CAPAI and
its agents conducted an analysis sufficient to determine whether there exists some substantial
inequity in Avista's current residential rate design such that CAPAI could not, in good
conscience, sign off on or otherwise join in the proposed settlement.
CAPAI notes that Avista was very cooperative and responsive in providing updated low-
income consumption data, revisions of that data to reflect actual monthly versus average usage,
and in performing numerous model runs in which the various rate design components of the
residential class were altered to determine how changes to any one of the components impacts
low-income customers' bills. Staff provided helpful input in this respect as well. All of this was
done informally in order to expedite CAPAI's analysis to enable it to take a position prior to the
deadlines imposed by the Commission in its Notice of Amended Schedule and Order No. 32740
issued February 12, 2013.
Using the data provided by Avista, CAPAI went to considerable effort to further analyze
it by performing its own model runs with changes to the following rate design components: 1)
the basic monthly charge, 2) the consumption level separating the two tiers of Avista's existing
residential rate design, 3) the introduction of a third tier, and 4) changing the commodity pricing
of the different tier levels. All of this was done while keeping in mind the Commission's general
policy to send proper price signals and impose costs on those who cause them to be incurred.
The work performed by CAPAI revealed not only low-income consumption patterns and levels
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 3
but also the impact of varying rate designs to those customers' bills. This same data is also
applicable to the entire residential class.
Though CAPAI believes that there remains considerable work to be done in enhancing
low-income data monitoring and collection and better understanding the true impacts of various
rate design alternatives, based on the information obtained and analysis performed, CAPAI saw
no reason to advocate for a change to Avista's current rate design for the residential class in this
proceeding.
Thus, on February 25, 2013, CAPAI filed a Notice of Joinder in the Settlement
Stipulation already executed and filed by the other parties to this case. CAPAI will continue to
utilize the data obtained and conclusions drawn in future Avista cases and for other utilities in an
ongoing effort to better understand low-income consumption and how best to design a utility's
rates to take into consideration that information while sending the appropriate price signals and
imposing costs consistent with Commission policies.
III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Rule 161 Requirements:
AVISTA is a regulated, electric and gas public utility with gross Idaho intrastate annual
revenues exceeding three million, five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00).
Rule 162 Requirements:
(01) Itemized list of Expenses
Consistent with Rule 162(0 1) 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."
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 4
(2)Statement of Proposed Findings
Like every other party who joined in the settlement, CAPAI supports the settlement in its
entirety and proposes that it be approved and adopted by the Commission. CAPAI also proposes
that the Commission encourage Avista, Staff, and other utilities to begin, or enhance ongoing
efforts, to track and maintain consumption data for the low-income sector of the residential class
for the purpose of examining rate design in greater detail in future rate cases.
CAPAI appreciates Avista's willingness to assist in the collection of data and
performance of different rate design model runs as requested by CAPAI, but there remains
considerable room for improvement for all of Idaho's electric utilities. In summary, CAPAI
supports approval of the settlement and offers as a proposed finding by the Commission
encouraging utilities and Staff, in future rate cases, to work with CAPAI to identify, collect,
monitor, and analyze low-income data, even in those cases that settle.
(3)Statement Showing Costs
CAPAI was the only party in this case to address residential rate design in detail and
ensure that low-income interests would not be affected disproportionately and adversely by the
proposed settlement. In addition to the analysis and work already described, CAPAI also fully
participated in two separate settlement meetings conducted by the parties.
Regarding the reasonableness of CAPAI's costs, 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 and especially in light
of recent federal budget cuts, as outlined above. CAPAI usually must forgo retaining expert
witnesses and consultants in highly technical areas and, instead, adopt a resourceful approach
using what limited resources that are at its disposal.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 5
Idaho's low-income electric utility customers are facing down increasing bills and
decreasing sources of assistance to enable them to continue paying those bills. As of next month,
April, 2013, the federal LIHEAP funds received by CAPAI to administer in aid of the poor will
be reduced by at least 5% if not more. CAPAI is already operating at a 10% budget reduction in
anticipation of this funding decrease. Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that the U.S.
Department of Energy low-income weatherization budget will be reduced by a massive two-
thirds, roughly 67%. Although the Commission has ordered increases over the past decade to the
utility-sponsored low-income weatherization programs, such funds are currently stayed pending
the outcome of the Commission's ruling in Case No. GRN-E-12-01. Even assuming that utility-
funded weatherization program funding will increase, any such increases will likely be more than
offset by federal budget reductions.
Because the foregoing programs effectively constitute the only sources of assistance to
the poor in Idaho related specifically to the payment of electric bills, this places increased
importance on every single aspect of ratemaking, including rate design. Now more than ever, it
is critical to begin to better understand low-income consumption and the impacts that different
rate designs have on the poor.
Thus, CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs incurred, and requested in Exhibit "A,"
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. CAPAI does not have "memberships" and,
therefore, does not receive member contributions of any kind. Many of CAPAI's funding
sources are unpredictable and impose conditions or limitations on the scope and nature of work
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 6
eligible for funding. CAPAI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionary" funds available for all
projects.
CAPAI' s sole source of funding to cover the costs of intervention before this
Commission is the LIHEAP program. CAPAI's LIHEAP budget is severely limited and
inflexible and funding is about to be reduced as already discussed. The more that such budgets
are reduced, the less ability CAPAI has to advocate for the interests of low-income utility
customers.
Thus, were it not for the availability of intervenor funds and past awards by this
Commission, CAPAI would not be able to participate in cases before this Commission
representing an important and otherwise unrepresented 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.
(5)Statement of Difference
CAPAI was the only party to fully analyze rate design as it affects residential, low-
income customers and waited until it had completed its analysis before joining the settlement.
Although Staff ultimately provided helpful input to CAPAI in the latter's efforts, it is fair to say
that CAPAI's determination to address this important issue before joining in the settlement was a
material difference from the position taken by Staff.
(6)Statement of Recommendation
CAPAI's efforts to assess the impacts of Avista's current rate design was not limited to
low-income customers but was relevant all residential customers. The analysis performed by
CAPAI produced useful information to the entire residential class. Because Avista's residential
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 7
class pays for the majority of the Company's overall revenue requirement, anything affecting
that class involves issues of concern to the general body of ratepayers.
(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 day of March, 2013.
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the '}lay of March 2013, served a copy of
the foregoing document on the following by electrorfi mail and/or U.S. mail, first class postage.
David J. Meyer
AVISTA Corporation
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220-3727
david.meyeravistacorp.com
Kelly Norwood
AVISTA Corporation
P.O. Box 3727
Spokane, WA 99220-3727
kelly.norwoodavistacorp.com
Karl Klein
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Deputy Attorney General
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
karl.kleinpuc.idaho.gov
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
420 W. Bannock
Boise, ID 83702
joemcdevift-mil1er.com
Larry A. Crowley
The Energy Strategies Institute, Inc.
5549 S. Cliffsedge
Boise, ID 83716
[e-mail]
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary
515 N. 27th St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Rd.
Boise, ID 83703
dreadingmindspring.com
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 9
Benjamin J. Otto
710N. 6th St.
Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
P.O. Box 1371
Boise, ID 83701
kmiller(,snakeriveralliance.org
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington St.
Boise, ID 83702
jean.jewell(puc.idaho.gov
_
Brad M. Purdy
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 10
EXHIBIT "A"
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
Costs:
Photocopies/postage $225.00
Total Costs $225.00
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy —52.6 hours @ $150.00/hr.) $7,890.00
Total Fees $7,890.00
Total Expenses $8,115.00
CAPAI APPLICATION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 11