20181221Petition for Intervenor Funding.pdf

ldaho Pubirc uiriities Commissionoo''*'fi'[r,?e.r3oo
oEc 2 I 20t8
Brad M. Purdy
Attorney at Law
Bar No. 3472
2019 N. 17ft St.
Boise, ID. 83702
[phone] (Land)
(208) 384-851 1 (Fax)
[e-mail]
Attorney for Petitioner
Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT
APPLICATION OF HYDRO ONE LIMITED
AND AVISTA CORPORATION FOR
APPROVAL OF MERGER AGREEMENT
ELECTRIC SERVICE IN IDAHO
Boise,ldaho
CASE NOS. AVU-E-17-09
AVU-G-17-05
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMMUNITY ACTION
PARTNERSHIP AS SOCIATION
OF IDAHO'S PETITION FOR
INTERVENOR FLINDING.
L INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW, the Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAPAI) and,
pursuant to Idaho Code $ 6l-617Aand Rules 16l-165 ofthe Commission's Rules of Procedure,
IDAPA 31.01.01 .161-165, petitions this Commission for an award of intervenor funding in the
above-capt ioned pro ceeding.
I BACKGROUND
This case was initiated with the filing of a Joint Application by Avista and Hydro One on
September 14,2017 for approval of a merger agreement between the two applicants. The
Commission issued a Notice of Application and Order No. 33903 on October 5,2017
establishing an intervention deadline of October 26,2017 for all interested parties. CAPAI
timely filed its Petition for Intervention which was granted by the Commission on November 8,
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FTINDING I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2017. On March 19,2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Settlement Conferences for April
26 and June 5, 2018. A technical hearing was set for June 27,2018.
In the months that followed the filing of the Joint Application, the parties actively began
examining and processing the underlying facts and applicable laws goveming the requested
merger. Through the efforts of the parties of record, a schedule was adopted by the Commission
in Order No. 33950 establishing, among other things, a complete case schedule including pre-file
deadlines for non-applicant witnesses of May 18, 2018. The Joint Applicants were directed to
file Rebuttal Testimony by June 20, 2018 and a hearing was scheduled for June 27 ,2018.
As the deadline for prefiled testimony approached, numerous changes were made in
terms of how the case would ultimately be handled procedurally. Rather than prefile testimony,
for instance, CAPAI filed Comments in Support of the Merger Agreement that had been reached
by parties involved in the case at that time. It wasn't until June 27,2018 that the Avista
Customer Group (ACG) late-filed its Petition to Intervene in this case. The Idaho Department of
Water Resources also late-filed its Petition to intervene on July 9, 2018, well after the filing of
comments on the proposed merger by those parties who timely filed their intervention petitions.
The consequences of late-filed intervention petitions in this case was to cause additional
work to be performed by those parties who timely filed and intervened at the outset of this case
but who were then obligated to repeat much of the work they had already performed prior to the
late interventions.
III. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Rule 161 Requirements (IDAPA 31.01.01.161):
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).
2CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FTINDING
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 clearly stated in the direct testimony and comments submitted in June of Wil Gehl
CAPAI supports the proposed settlement stipulation and recommends that the commission
approve the merger settlement stipulation. The reasons cited by Mr. Gehl are numerous and rely,
primarily, on the considerable funding that Avista has pledged to be directed, in part or in whole,
toward increasing funding for existing low income assistance programs to establishing a new
program oflering bill payment assistance for the poor using shareholder funds.
(3) Statement Showing Costs:
CAPAI requests $17,000 in Intervenor funding, as shown in Exhibit 2 hereto. CAPAI submits
that both the hourly rate and hours expended are reasonable, particularly in light of the
complexity and length of this proceeding. CAPAI's legal counsel has twenty-eight (28) years of
direct experience before this commission as both Deputy Attomey General for the Commission
Staff and eighteen (18) years in private practice handling a myriad of cases before this
commission as well as in other sectors of the law. CAPAI has historically requested an amount
of intervenor funding that prices CAPAI's Executive Director and legal counsel at levels far less
than market rates. As stated in its Petition for Intervenor Funding in Case No. AVU-E-77-01,
the undersigned has rarely increased his legal rates in the eighteen (18) years that he has
represented CAPAI before this Commission. Given his nearly three decades of experience in a
field that is undeniably arcane and highly specialized, and given that legal counsel's current
1JCAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FLINDING
hourly rate of $150 is, at abare minimunr, 2-3 times below market levels for attorneys with
similar experience and is not likely even the rate paid to most associate attorneys in private
practice with no PUC experience, the undersigned has increased his rate to $250/lr. Again, this
is still below market rate.
CAPAI 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. CAPAI's participation is
summarized throughout this Petition, including in Exhibit "A." For the reasons stated herein,
CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs it seeks to recover as set forth in Exhibit A, are
reasonable in amount.
(4) Explanation of Cost Statement:
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 its Executive Director, Mr.
Gehl, and will continue to do so in the future. CAPAI has historically requested an amount of
intervenor funding that prices CAPAI's executive director and legal counsel at levels less than
market rates in any given case.
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.
4CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
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.
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.
Based on the foregoing, CAPAI respectfully submits that the costs incurred and requested
in this Petition are reasonable in amount.
(05) Statement of Difference
As with any case at least partially resolved through settlement, details of positions taken
during such negotiations typically cannot be revealed or otherwise disclosed outside of the
5CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FLNDING
settlement process. Thus, to specifu in this case exactly how the positions taken by CAPAI
during settlement materially differed from those of the Commission Staff carries the risk of
violating the confidentiality aspect of negotiated settlements. Just the same, the positions taken
by CAPAI and the Commission Staffwere certainly not identical and differed materially from
one another.
(06) Statement of Recommendation
Avista's low income customers constitute a significant and increasing segment ofthe
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 afflects 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 21st day of December, 2018.
Brad M. Purdy
6CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FLINDING
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifu that on this 21st day of December, 2018, I caused the foregoing
document to be served on the following via electronic service:
Avista Corporation
David Meyer
Dav icl. meyer(@a vistacorp. con-r
Linda Gervais
Lincl a. gerva i s @av istaco rp. com
Staff
Brandon Karpen
Brandon. karpen@puc. idaho. gov
Stacey Donohue
Stacey. donohue(ir)pug. idaho. qov
Diane Hanian
Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission+
d. ho lt (1, p uc. icl. _1ro r,
Brad M. Purdy
7CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FLINDING
EXHIBIT ..A'
ITEMIZED EXPENSES
CAPAI'S STATEMENT SHOWING COSTS
Case AVU-E-17-01
Tasks performed during course of case: Brad M. Purdy.
Expense Categories
The categories of expenses and work performed are as follows
Research initial application, testimonies and exhibits filed by joint Applicants.
Prepare and file initial Petition to Intervene.
Review of Commission Order(s) and Notice(s).
Participate in drafting and reviews of Settlement stipulations.
Receipt and review late-filed intervenor petitions.
Meetings and communications w/client.
Numerous meetings and/or telephone conferences w/other parties.
Prepare CAPAI comments in support of stipulation filed in June,
Preparation for and participation in numerous settlement negotiations and
scheduling conferences
Review testimonies and exhibits filed by all parties
Assist in preparing CAPAI's written comments and direct testimony
Prepare for and participate in? day technical hearing
Total Hours Worked - Brad M. Purdy
Total Hours worked at billable rate:70 hrs. @ $200.00/hr.
Hrs.
5
2
I
J
2
5
5
5
l0
5
7
20
70
s14,000
Tasks performed during course of case: Wil Gehl.
Total Hours Worked - Wil Gehl 49 hrs. @$60.42
Total fees for Brad M. Purdy and Wil Gehl:
Copies and postage:
TOTAL EXPENSES
Hrs.
$3,ooo
$17,000
re
CAPAI'S PETITION FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING
$17,0453
8