20151207Petition for Intervenor Funding.pdf

Brad M. Purdy
Attomey at Law
BarNo.3472
2019 N. 176 St.
Boise, D. 83702
[phone] (Land)
(208) 484-9e80 (Cell)
[e-mail]
Attomey for Petitioner
Community Action Partrrership
Association of Idaho
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF AVISTA CORPORATION DBA AVISTA
UTILITIES FOR AUTIIORITY TO
INCREASE ITS RATES AI\D CHARGES FOR
ELECTRIC AI{D NATI]RAL GAS SERVICE
IN IDAHO
i?,ICIl',/,li fj
?01$ 0EC -7 pt{ tr, 0l
u T I L1?fdlcif;i,} i8u, o *
BEFORE TITE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITTES COMIVIISSION
cAsE NO. AVU-E-15-05
AVU-C-I5-01
CAPAI PETITION FOR
INTERVENOR FT]NDING
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
COMES NOW, Petitioner Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAD
and, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 6l-617A and Rules 161-165 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure, IDAPA 3 I .01 .01 , petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the
above-captioned proceeding.
Rule 16l 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(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
CAPAI, along with every other party to this proceeding, agreed to the settlement and
executed the Stipulation and Joint Motion accordingly. As with every settlement, there was
compromise by all parties required in order to fully resolve the Company's filing. CAPAI
believes that the Stipulation proposes terms that are far more favorable than those originally
proposed in the Company's original application in this case and constitute a result that is fair,
just and reasonable to all parties.
Some of the more compelling that CAPAI supports the settlement is the fact that Avista
initially requested a two-year, trvo phase rate increase consisting of an increase to electric rates
of $13.2 million and an increase to natural gas rates of $13.2 million (5.2%) and $3.2 million
(4.5%) respectively, to be effective January 1,2016. The second phase of the rate increase
would consist of an increase to electric rates of $13.7 million (5.1%) and $1.7 million (2.2%)
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
effective January 1,2017 . Thus, the two year rate increase would have totaled $26.9 million for
electric customers and $4.9 million for gas customers. The parties further agreed to an
authorized rate of return for Avista of 9.5% and a common equity ratio of 50.0%.
The settlement ultimately reached would result in a one phase increase to electric rates of
$1.7 million and $2.5 million for gas rates representing a0.69% and3.49% increase,
respectively. The rates, if approved, would become effective January 1,2016.
Regarding rate base and rate design, the Company proposes a25Yo move toward unity
without adopting any particular cost of service methodology. Though this will result in a slightly
higher rate increase for the residential class, it is based on cost of service data showing that the
residential class is currently paylng rates that are below its cost of service by more thanthe2iYo
movement toward parity proposed in the Stipulation.
The parties agreed that the increase in base revenues would be spread to all electric and
gas schedules on a pro rate allocation of the Company's rate spread percentages from its original
application. The settlement proposes that the revenue requirement for each electric schedule will
be applied as a uniform percentage increase to each volumetric energy rate. Fixed monthly
charges, including the Residential Basic Customer Charge, and frxed and variable demand
charges will remain unchanged.
The settlement also proposes a fixed cost adjustment mechanism for Avista. Though it
will be some time to determine the overall effects of this mechanism, the required reporting,
auditing and monitoring safeguards seem adequate to ensure that the program operates as
intended. In addition, the mechanism caps any year's FCA adjustment to 3Yoper ever rate
group. It also might reduce the rate shock impact of large capital investrnents.
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
Finally, the Company has agreed to meet with CAPAI, Staff and all other interested
parties no later than June, 2016 to discuss means by which to obtain better low income data
including identifying an accurate methodology to identifu the low income population of the
Company's customer base, and identifying consumption tendencies of those customers. [n
addition, the Company has agreed to reassess its current Low Income Weatherization Assistance
and Low lncome Conservation Education programs, how to maximize their cost-effectiveness
and what appropriate future funding levels could be reasonably justified.
CAPAI recommends, therefore, that the Commission approve the settlement agreement
as proposed.
(03) Statement Showing Costs
CAPAI fully participated in this proceeding from preparatory work following receipt of
the Company's Notice of Intent to File a General Rate Case to the drafting of this Petition and
follow-up work including reviewing and interpreting the Commission's final Order and other
wrap-up work for which CAPAI has never sought reimbursement.
CAPAI relies largely on federal funding. As the Commission is keenly aware, funding
for all manner of entities, including CAPAI, has declined significantly in recent years. As a
result, it has been necessary for CAPAI to reduce its personnel in order to remain a viable
organization providing essential services to the individual Community Action Agencies.
Although CAPAI has retained an expert witness on one or two occasions over roughly 13 years,
it rarely has sufficient funding to do so. Consequently, CAPAI's expert wifiress is its Executive
Director, Christina Zamoraupon whom CAPAI relies heavily for all technical and policy aspects
of this and any other IPUC case that CAPAI intervenes in. In that and every other respect, Ms.
Zamora is a highly-qualified expert. Were CAPAI to track and bill her hours at anything
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
remotely resembling a modest market rate, CAPAI's funding requests would increase
significantly. Despite the foregoing, CAPAI has never sought funding for Ms. Zalnrrora's
expertise and work she invests in cases before the Commission. In short, CAPAI has no choice
but to be extremely frugal and to keep its costs at a minimum.
As stated, CAPAI participated in all aspects of this proceeding. By reviewing Avista's
discovery responses, participating in settlement, both fonnal and via email and other means, and
through extensive sidebar discussions with the Company, CAPAI was able to propose support of
the Settlement Stipulation in this case. Although CAPAI's constituents are obviously low
income customers, there is so little data enabling CAPAI to determine how many low income
customers a given utility has, CAPAI must assume that the actual population is many times
greater than simply those who currently receive some form of utility assistance, such as LIHEAP
customers. Thus, CAPAI must consider the impacts of any proposed changes to a utility's rates,
charges, and services on the residential class as a whole in order to ensure that those as-of-yet
unidentified low income customers' interests are advocated for as well. Although Staff considers
the interests of the residential class, so must it do for every class. CAPAI is the only party
dedicated solely to low income customers known, and unknown, all of whom are residential
class customers.
Finally, CAPAI notes that its legal counsel's stated rate is less than the average first year
associate practicing in Boise, Idaho. CAPAI's counsel has 30 years of practice as an attomey, 25
years of which include public utilities work, one of the most highly specialized fields in the
practice of law. Hourly rates for an attorney with commensurate experience in such a specialized
area of practice in this market are at least 2-3 times what CAPAI seeks for recovery in its
intervenor funding requests. Furthermore, in the roughly eleven years that CAPAI's legal
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
counsel has represented CAPAI in PUC proceedings, counsel has increased his rate only 2-3
times and, even then, only an overall total of approximately $SO/hour.
The work performed by CAPAI is more fully identified in general terms in Exhibit "A"
to this Petition. For the reasons stated throughout this Petition, CAPAI respectfully submits that
the costs it seeks to recover and set forth hereto 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. Although CAPAI does collect a small amount of
membership dues, it utilizes federal funding to participate in advocacy activities regarding utility
rate case increases. Many of CAPAI's funding sources are unpredictable and impose conditions
or limitations on the scope and nature of work eligible for funding. As stated, CAPAI has
experienced significant budget cuts in the past 5 or so years, requiring it to operate with less
personnel. CAPAI, therefore, has relatively little "discretionary''funds available for all projects.
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.
(05) Statement of Difference
CAPAI was the only party to fully analyze everything from revenue requirement to rate
spread and rate design as those areas of ratemaking affect residential, low-income customers and
Avista's LIWA and Low lncome Conservation Education program funding and waited until it
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
had completed its analysis before joining the settlement. Although Staff evaluates most areas of
any given rate case, it chose to not weigh in on the low income issues agreed to in the Settlement
Stipulation. Thus, CAPAI's recommendations and proposals were materially different from
those of Stafffor purposes of Rule 161(05).
(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 and failure to pay their bills, the costs of which would otherwise be passed on to
all other customers, CAPAI's recommendations and involvement in this case clearly affects the
general body of Avista's customers.
(07) Statement Showing Class of Customer
To the extent that CAPAI represents a specific customer class of AVISTA, it is the
residential class.
RESPECTFLILLY SUBMITTED, this Tthday of December,2015.
Brad M. Purdy
7CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
CERTTFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the 7th day of December, 2015,I served a copy
of the foregoing document on the following by electronic mail and U.S. postage or hand
delivery.
COMMISSION STAFF':
Karl Klein
Brandon Karpen
Deputies Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington St.
Boise,ID 83702
karl.klein@puc. idaho. gov
brandon.karpen@puc. idaho. gov
AVISTA CORPORATION:
Kelly Norwood
Vice President State & Federal Regulation
Avista Corporation
POBox3727
Spokane, WA99220-3727
kelly.norwood@,avistacorp. com
David Meyer
Vice President and Chief Counsel
of Regulatory & Governmental Affairs
Avista Corporation
P0Box3727
Spokane, WA99220-3727
david. meyer@avistacorp. com
CLEARWATER PAPER CORPORATION:
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th St.
Boise,Idaho 83702
peter@richardsonadams. com
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Rd.
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING 8
Boise,ID 83703
[e-mail]
IDAIIO FOREST GROUP, LLC:
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller
420W. Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2564-83701
Boise,ID 83702
j oe@mcdevitt-miller. com
Larry A. Crowley
The Energy Sfrategies Institute, Inc.
5549 S. Cliffsedge Ave.
Boise,ID 83716
[e-mail]
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE:
Benjamin J. Otto
Idaho Conservation League
710 N. 6th St.
Boise,ID 83702
[e-mail]
SNAKE RIVER ALLIAITICE:
Ken Miller
Snake River Alliance
P.O. Box 1731
Boise,ID 83701
knunez@snakeriveralliance. org
kmiller@snakeriveralliance. org
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
EXHIBIT "A"
ITENIIZED EXPENSES
CAPAI'S SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED BY LEGAL COTINSEL
The following billing excerpts do not include all of the work performed by legal counsel as
desire, but provide an overall sense of the nature of work performed each month.
Mav Invoice (for work performed during May):
Total Hours Worked: 8.5
Nature of work: Numerous communications with Avista re its desire to conduct teleconference
shortly after initial application is filed. Discuss general nature of application. Communications
wlC. Zamora re her availability and potential issues to raise during rate case. Discussions with
various Community Action Agency personnel re issues they would like addressed. Discuss
logistics of proposed teleconference with David Meyer. Participate in teleconference with
Avista. Draft summary of Company's proposal both in substantive and procedural
respects. Share summary with C. Zamora.
June Invoice
Total Hours Worked: 8.3
Nature of Work: Receipt and review Avista's rate case filing and all supporting testimony and
exhibits. Meetings/teleconferences C. Zamora reviewing Company's proposal. Continue
analyzingall testimony & exhibits supporting application. Conferences w/C. Zamorure whether
to intervene in Avista case and objectives for doing so. Teleconferences with Avista personnel
re CAPAI's areas of primary concern. Draft Petition to lntervene in rate case. Forward same to
C.Zamorafor review.
Julv Invoice
Total Hours Worked: 4.9
Nature of Work: Review responses to discovery from Avista. Communications wiCompany
re scheduling settlement conference. Receipt numerous responses from other parties to Avista's
proposed settlement conference. Preparation for Avista settlement conference. Receipt, review
and reply to multitudes of objections, scheduling issues and revised date for settlement
conference. Review numerous discovery responses from Avista.
Ausust Invoice
Total Hours Worked: 2.0
Nature of Work: Review proposed workshops in N. Idaho re Avista rate application. Receipt
numerous discovery requests and responses. Communications/meetings C. Zamora to discuss
status of case and formulation of CAPAI objectives. Communications dAvista personnel re
objectives. Receipt and review numerous discovery requests/responses.
September Invoice
Total Ilours Worked: 6.8
Nature of Work: Receipt and review numerous discovery requests and
responses. Communications w/client prior to teleconference dAvista. Detailed teleconference
w/Avista re CAPAI's specific proposals for low income data collection and LIWA and Low
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING l0
Income Conservation Education programs. Discuss specifics of same and sharing of ideas as to
how to obtain desired data. Review LIWA cost-effectiveness evaluations performed by/for other
utilities in Idaho and other states. Discuss CAPAI objectives w/Staffpersonnel. Receipt
additional communications from Avista re settlement conference. Receipt//review additional
discovery. lntemal communications w/C. Zamorare all aspects of case. Research history of
Avista's changes to basic monthly residential charge. Final preparation and participation in
Avista settlement conference. Post-conference telephone call Avista re FCA
details. Communications dother parties re their positions on FCS, rate design and other
issues. Participate in meeting to further discuss details of Avista's FCA mechanism. Numerous
communications all parties re finalizing details of rough draft settlement agreement.
October Invoice
Total Hours Worked: 8.4
Nature of Work: Receipt/review rough draft of settlement papers from Avista. Provide copy to
C.Zamoruand discussions re same including proposed timing of execution of
Stipulation. Receipt/review multitudes of emails/phone calls re proposed edits to settlement,
logistics of executing same, receipt of revised drafts of document, need to amend existing
schedule to accommodate settlement. Telephone calls Avista personnel re confirmation of
Company's agreement to include specific low income provisions in Stipulation agreed upon
verbally. Meetings wlC. Zamora re her acceptance of Avista's proposed low income Stipulation
language and all other aspects of settlement germane to CAPAI's interests. Numerous
communications all parties continuing to change verbiage of Stipulation. Discuss Avista's
intentions as to whether it intended to propose reinstatement of natual gas conservation
program. Communications ilstaff re pre-filing testimony in support of settlement stipulation
and deadline for doing so.
November Invoice
Total Hours Worked: 7.9
Nature of Work: Assist in drafting testimony of C. Zamora in support of settlement. Continued
communications w/all parties re last minute issues and timing of testimony filing
deadline. Finalize C. Zamora's Testimony in Support of Settlement Testimony. Receipt and
review Joint Motion to reschedule case in light of settlement. Execute same. File testimony of
C. Zamora. Preparation for and participation in Avista hearing before IPUC on settlement
stipulation.
Total llours Worked on Case 46.8
Costs:
Photocopies/postage
Total Costs
$s2.15
$s2.1s
Fees:
Legal (Brad M. Purdy - 46.8 hours @ $150.00/hr.)
Total Fees
Total Expenses
$7,020.00
$7,020.00
$7.072.15
CAPAI PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING