CEDI Coalition

Overview

Click a topic below to jump to that part of the page.

• INTRODUCTION 

• CONTEXT

• INTERVENTION

  • COALITION DEVELOPMENT

  • COALITION MEMBERS

  • RESOLUTION COMMUNITIES

• COALITION GOALS, COUNSEL, and WITNESSES

• COALITION FILINGS

• OUTCOMES

  • FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

    • Download EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)
    • Download FULL REPORT (PDF)

  • NEXT STEPS

 

INTRODUCTION

In October 2023, Alliant Energy asked the Iowa Utilities Commission to approve an electric rate increase to be phased in over two years starting in October 2024 and concluding in October 2025.

This was Alliant Energy’s sixth request to increase electric rates since 2004. If approved as proposed, the proposed rate increase would have resulted in the largest increase in the company's history, representing another $284 million being transferred annually out of the local economies of Alliant communities in Iowa.

CONTEXT

Alliant’s Rising Rates

Alliant estimated the electric bills of residential customers would increase by an average of 13.4%, small businesses and municipalities by 20%, and large general service customers by 17.4% to 20%.

According to CEDI’s analysis of utility data furnished to the Iowa Utilities Commission, Alliant’s average annual cost per kWh for residential customers in 2022 was once again almost the highest in the state. Alliant’s residential rates are higher than all but two of Iowa’s 181 electric utilities--including every one of Iowa’s 43 rural electric cooperatives.

The same data revealed that Alliant’s electric costs are also very high when compared with the other large investor-owned electric utility in Iowa. Compared to MidAmerican Energy Company, Alliant’s costs are currently 61.3% higher for residential customers, 48.9% higher for small businesses, and 31.6% higher for industrial customers.

In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Alliant Energy has the third-highest residential rates among 31 investor-owned utilities with at least 100,000 customers in the Midwest.

Alliant Notice of Proposed Electric Rate Increase

NOTE: The above table appears in Alliant's Notice of Proposed Electric Rate Increase, filed with the Iowa Utilities Commission on October 6, 2023.

The Impact on Alliant Communities

High rates are unaffordable for low- and fixed-income residents.

Alliant’s high and rising rates are causing serious hardship for the 101,997 low‐income households the company acknowledges constitute 25 percent of their 411,277 residential customers. These ratepayers are some of Iowa’s most disadvantaged citizens because, in many cases, they spend over 20 percent of their household income to heat, cool, and power their homes.

Alliant’s high and rising rates also pose serious financial challenges for moderate‐income households, fixed-income households, small businesses, industries, nonprofit institutions, educational institutions, school districts, and municipal governments. 

Many of the 750+ comments in Docket No. RPU-2023-0002 were submitted by small business owners and low-income households that are barely scraping by given the recent high rate of inflation. In addition, many comments were submitted by senior citizens who compared Alliant’s estimated 13.4% increase to the 3.2% cost of living increase they received from Social Security in 2024.

High rates discourage economic development.

Alliant’s rates are also a hindrance to economic development for nearly all communities in Alliant’s monopoly service territory. The vast majority of population growth and economic development in Iowa is taking place in MidAmerican Energy’s service territory due, at least in part, to their low rates.

This is certainly true for large tech companies like Amazon (Davenport), Apple (Des Moines), Google (Council Bluffs), Meta/Facebook (Altoona), and Microsoft (West Des Moines), which have all opened large facilities in MidAmerican’s service territory to benefit from the company’s cheaper and cleaner power.

CEDI COALITION FORMS

After Alliant Energy proposed another record rate increase in October 2023, the Clean Energy Districts of Iowa (CEDI) formed the CEDI Coalition to intervene on behalf of communities, businesses, non-profit organizations, and households in the Alliant Energy service territory. 

The CEDI Coalition consists of thirteen legally incorporated energy districts located in Allamakee, Cerro Gordo, Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Howard, Jackson, Johnson, Linn, Muscatine, Polk, Tama, and Winneshiek counties. 

In addition, 50 communities across Iowa are members of the CEDI Coalition:  Alexander, Andrew, Ashton, Baxter, Belmond, Bennett, Britt, Charlotte, Clearfield, Clermont, Clinton, Cresco, Decorah, Delmar, Dike, Elgin, Elkader, Garber, Garnavillo, Garner, Hawkeye, Holland, Jewell, Joice, Kamrar, Lambs Grove, Le Grand, Lisbon, Luana, Meservey, Montour, Murray, Nevada, Newton, Palo, Parnell, Quasqueton, Rickardsville, Rolfe, Rowan, Sheldahl, Springbrook, Stanwood, Stockton, Titonka, Volga, Wellsburg, West Union, Wheatland, Whitten.

 

 

Finally, 85 communities and three counties (Cerro Gordo, Hancock, and Winnebago), filed official resolutions with the Iowa Utilities Commission:  Alexander, Andrew, Ashton, Baxter, Belmond, Bennett, Blakesburg, Britt, Buffalo Center, Calamus, Center Point, Central City, Charlotte, Clarence, Clearfield, Clermont, Clinton, Corydon, Cresco, Decorah, Delmar, DeWitt, Dike, Dows, Elgin, Elkader, Epworth, Frederika, Garber, Garnavillo, Garner, Goose Lake, Grand Mound, Hawkeye, Holland, Jewell, Joice, Kalona, Kamrar, Le Grand, Leland, Lincoln, Lisbon, Liscomb, Luana, Maharishi Vedic City, Marengo, Marquette, Mason City, Meservey, Monona, Montour, Murray, Nevada, Newton, New Vienna, Northwood, Oelwein, Palo, Parnell, Peosta, Plymouth, Quasqueton, Rake, Randall, Redfield, Rickardsville, Ridgeway, Rolfe, Rowan, Sheldahl, Sigourney, Stanwood, Swisher, Titonka, Thompson, Ventura, Wellman, Wellsburg, Welton, West Union, Wheatland, Whitten, and Williamsburg.

 

 

These resolutions opposed the magnitude of Alliant’s proposed rate increase and urged the Iowa Utilities Commission to: 

• Address Alliant’s high, rising, and unreasonable costs that are imposing serious hardship for low and moderate‐income households, fixed-income households, small businesses, industries, nonprofit institutions, educational institutions, and our own municipal government.
• Maintain and improve the ability of customers and communities to save and prosper through investments in customer- and community-owned distributed energy resources, such as energy efficiency, solar power, geothermal energy, and battery storage.
• Require rate-regulated utilities to conduct integrated resource planning and competitive procurement to ensure all utility investments are justified and cost-effective.
• Cease approving unnecessarily high returns on equity that reward shareholders at the expense of Alliant ratepayers.

COALITION GOALS, COUNSEL, AND WITNESSES

As official intervenors in Docket RPU-2023-0002 CEDI secured the legal services of the Skinner Law Office in Altoona, Iowa, and three expert witnesses for this intervention effort.

These professionals submitted hundreds of pages of testimony and exhibits focused on:

• Reducing the overall magnitude of Alliant’s proposed electric rate increase
• Addressing the high energy burden on households and the negative impact of high rates on community economic development
• Defending the rights of customers and communities to invest in and own distributed energy resources
• Emphasizing the critical importance of cost-effectiveness, resiliency, and transparent and inclusive planning in grid investments.

Cecil Wright led our legal efforts. Cecil recently retired from 24 years of service at the Iowa Utilities Commission where he held multiple positions including Senior Staff Attorney, General Counsel, and Chief Operating Officer.

 

CEDI Coalition Witnesses

		Dave Berg is the founder and Principal of Dave Berg Consulting, LLC. Dave is a licensed professional engineer with more than forty years of experience in the electric utility industry. He is an expert on class cost-of-service and rate design and addresses both in his Direct Testimony, Cross-Rebuttal Testimony, and Surrebuttal Testimony. Specifically, Dave argues that the Iowa Utilities Commission should reject Alliant’s proposal to utilize a novel marginal class cost-of-service approach instead of the embedded cost approach that is preferred by Iowa law. He also regards Alliant’s distinction between full and partial requirements customers as discriminatory and unjust, and he opposes Alliant’s proposal to treat standby and supplementary power customers in the same way.
		Karl Rábago is the founder and Principal of Rabago Energy, LLC. Karl has worked for more than 33 years in the utility industry. His experience includes serving as a Commissioner on the Public Utility Commission of Texas, Deputy Assistant Secretary with the U.S. Department of Energy, Vice President with Austin Energy, Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center, Managing Director with the Rocky Mountain Institute, and Director with AES Corporation. He has submitted testimony or comments in utility proceedings in more than 30 states. Karl is a national expert on distributed energy resources and distribution system planning, which are the main subjects he discusses in his Direct Testimony, Cross-Rebuttal Testimony, and Surrebuttal Testimony. Specifically, Karl addresses Alliant’s past and proposed spending in various areas including incentive compensation, distribution system planning, fiber optic communications, and the company’s advanced distribution management system (ADMS).  He recommends the Iowa Utilities Commission require Alliant to prepare a comprehensive and integrated distribution system plan, coordinated with a larger-scale integrated resource plan, as well as a comprehensive, objective, and detailed benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for any fiber spending proposals.
		James Martin-Schramm is an ethicist, Policy Analyst with the Clean Energy Districts of Iowa, and Emeritus Professor at Luther College. Most of his scholarship has focused on ethics and public policy—especially energy and climate policy. He has submitted testimony in several dockets at the Iowa Utilities Commission over the past two decades. As an ethicist, Jim focuses primarily on customer affordability in his Direct Testimony, Cross-Rebuttal Testimony, and Surrebuttal Testimony. Specifically, Jim provides evidence that Alliant’s residential rates are almost the highest in Iowa and are among the highest in the Midwest, which has led to high rates of customer dissatisfaction and low rates of economic development in Alliant communities. He emphasizes that Alliant’s proposed rate increase will have a disproportionate impact on approximately 100,000 low-income households with high energy burdens and notes that the company has not proposed measures to lessen the impact. He explains how Alliant should be able to save ratepayers’ money through the federal Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program and provides several reasons why the Iowa Utilities Commission should impose a management efficiency penalty on Alliant.

KEY CEDI COALITION DOCKET FILINGS (RPU-2023-0002) 

Motions, Comments, and Briefs

11-17-2023 Petition to Intervene 

12-01-2023 Motion to Dismiss Application

12-14-2024 Motion to Require Compliance Filing

07-05-2024 Comments and Objections to Settlement

07-29-2024 Post-Hearing Brief

Expert Witness Testimony

04-16-2024 Berg Direct Testimony (Public)

04-16-2024 Rábago Direct Testimony (Public)

04-16-2024 Martin-Schramm Direct Testimony (Public)

04-30-2024 Berg Cross Rebuttal Testimony (Public)

04-30-2024 Rábago Cross Rebuttal Testimony (Public)

04-30-2024 Martin-Schramm Cross Rebuttal Testimony (Public)

05-28-2024 Berg Surrebuttal Testimony (Public)

05-28-2024 Rábago Surrebuttal Testimony (Public)

05-28-2024 Martin-Schramm Surrebuttal Testimony (Public)

Additional Information

Use this link to locate all documents filed in Docket No. RPU-2023-0002.  To locate exhibits filed with expert witness testimony, check the box “Full Text Search” and type the last name of the witness in the “Full Text Search” box.

RATE CASE OUTCOMES

DOWNLOAD the following CEDI Coalition FULL REPORT 09-20-24 (PDF)
DOWNLOAD an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)

Final Settlement

On September 17, the Iowa Utilities Commission(IUC) issued its unanimous Final Decision and Order in Docket No. RPU-2023-0002 regarding Alliant Energy’s request to increase its rates for service to electric and natural gas customers.  Here is a link to the IUC’s official press release.

The Commission accepted without modification the non-unanimous and partial settlement agreement that was reached in negotiations between Alliant, the Iowa Office of the Consumer Advocate (OCA), and the Iowa Business Energy Coalition (IBEC). The IUC also addressed and resolved other contested matters not in the settlement agreement.

The final rate increases will not be official until the IUC approves Alliant’s compliance tariffs, which must be filed within 30 days of the Commission’s order.  The total bill increase for the Residential class is projected to be 5.92%, which is less than half the 13.4% increase the company projected in October 2024. We believe this substantial reduction in the projected increase for residential customers is due, in part, to the testimony and evidence the CEDI Coalition provided regarding Alliant’s high and rising costs for residential households and high and severe energy burdens for low-income households.

The total bill increase for the non-residential General Service (GS) class (e.g., Main Street businesses, city government buildings, and community non-profits) will be capped at 15%.

The Large General Service (LGS) class will face a 12.68% total bill increase compared to the initial projection of a 17.4% increase, but the LGS-Supplementary class (customers with solar or other renewable energy systems behind their meter) will experience a total bill increase of 15% compared to the 20% projected in October 2023.

It is important to note, however, that these percentage increases pertain to the respective customer classes.  Actual customer bills may be higher or lower than this class average based on consumption decisions and customer decisions regarding rate design changes.

We explained in our previous update why the CEDI Coalition opposed the proposed settlement agreement.  In this final update, we want to summarize key information in the IUC’s 161-page Final Decision and Order in RPU-2023-0002 and offer our perspective on these outcomes.

Key Components of the Settlement Agreement

Electric Revenue Requirement, (pp. 6-7).  The IUC approved the proposed $99 million reduction in the revenue requirement from $284 million to $185 million.  The Commission noted that this “significant decrease . . . will reduce the amount customers will be required to pay in rates.” (pp. 6-7)

Left unsaid is the fact that the $185 million increase in the revenue requirement is yet another record increase for the company--far exceeding the previous record increase of $127 million approved only four years ago in RPU-2019-0001. Not surprisingly, Wall Street was happy.  Alliant’s stock price hit a 52-week high ($60.51) on the same day the Commission issued its Final Decision and Order.

We pointed out in our post-hearing brief that this “significant decrease” would still result in Alliant receiving 65% of what they requested. As you can see in the table below, with only two exceptions, since 2002, Alliant has settled for a revenue requirement that, on average, has provided the company with 68.6% of the revenue requirement it requested.

Source: CEDI Coalition Post-Hearing Brief, RPU-2023-0002, July 29, 2024, pg. 54

Thus, the revised $185 million revenue requirement represents “business as usual” for Alliant. The company came in with an inflated request, jettisoned certain items to appear reasonable, and walked away with an increased revenue requirement that has obviously made their shareholders happy.In fairness, however, the other key components in the approved settlement agreement do depart from “business as usual” and may improve customer affordability in the future.  We address these next.

Base Rate Moratorium, (pp. 20-24).  The IUC also approved a five-year moratorium on base rate increases until October 2029. There are two important exceptions, however. First, the moratorium would cease “if Alliant’s return on equity (ROE) is 100 or more basis points below the authorized ROE for a single calendar year or 50 or more basis points below the authorized ROE for two consecutive years.”

Second, the moratorium would cease if “a material change in law or regulations causes the Electric Base Rate Moratorium to become unsustainable.” (p. 20)The CEDI Coalition argued for a rate freeze in its testimony and thus welcomes this five-year base rate moratorium. That said, we argued in our post-hearing brief that the moratorium will result in “business as usual” if the company simply returns in five years for another major rate increase. To be meaningful, a rate freeze or moratorium should be for a longer term than the normal interval between rate dockets.

We also argued that the moratorium should only be lifted if Alliant’s ROE fell 150 basis points below the authorized ROE in any given year.It is important to note that the five-year moratorium only pertains to base rates. It does not pertain to flow-through charges like the Regional Transmission Service (RTS) charge, which has been increasing at over 5% annually for several years.

Electric Earnings Sharing Mechanism, (pp. 25-40).  The IUC approved the earnings sharing agreement proposed in the Settlement. Specific items excluded from the calculation of operating income include short and long-term incentive compensation to Alliant employees, corporate airfare costs, 50% of director fees and insurance costs, and any fiber optic network system costs not included in rate base. “Any earnings above the [9.65%] blended ROE will be ‘shared’ with IPL’s ratepayers until Alliant’s next rate case” (p. 25) based on the table below:

 

THRESHOLD	SHARING
First 50 basis points	75% customers, 25% IPL
>50 to 100 basis points	50% customers, 50% IPL
>100 to 150 basis points	25% customers, 75% IPL
>150 basis points	100% customers

 

The CEDI Coalition criticized Alliant in testimony for not proposing or supporting a revenue-sharing agreement in the past, thus we welcome the approved earnings-sharing agreement and hope it reduces Alliant’s high costs and the affordability of service for low-income customers.

Electric Distribution Investment Cap, (pp. 27-40).  The IUC also approved a $900 million distribution investment cap through 2029 that was proposed in the Settlement. This hard cap includes distribution system investments, “unless it is a battery energy storage system interconnected at transmission voltage.” (p. 28).

One of the reasons Alliant’s costs are so high compared to other electric utilities is that they have been making large investments in their distribution system over many years.A significant percentage of these costs is associated with Alliant’s policy to underground all distribution lines over time. Another significant percentage is associated with Alliant’s plan to build a fiber optic network linking all of their facilities in Iowa and Wisconsin. Significant evidence was presented by CEDI Coalition witnesses and other intervenors that much of this spending is excessive, unnecessary, and benefiting shareholders over ratepayers.

The CEDI Coalition submitted testimony that the $900 million distribution spending cap allows the company to maintain “business as usual” high spending levels, and avoids the rigor associated with benefit-cost analysis and the comprehensiveness of an integrated distribution system plan. In response to the concerns raised by the CEDI Coalition, the Office of the Consumer Advocate, and other intervenors, the IUC added new and additional annual reporting requirements for distribution investments that include customer benefit-cost analysis, a quantitative ranking of projects, bottom-up capital budgeting, and a sole focus on Alliant’s jurisdiction in Iowa. The Commission imposed similar reporting requirements for fiber optic network expenses.

Unfortunately, the Commission merely encouraged Alliant to provide its annual distribution cap reports to all parties in the docket and not only those that joined the settlement. Hopefully, Alliant will do so. Without access to these reports non-settling parties like the CEDI Coalition will lack key information about major expenses incurred by the company.

Resource Planning (pp. 51-56). The IUC also approved a requirement in the Settlement that Alliant conduct a Resource Evaluation Study (RES) at least once every three years. The Settlement specifies that this process will be used to:

• Identify options for IPL to meet its ongoing electric generating capacity and energy needs
• Consider overall customer cost
• Identify the locations of resources
• Review commercial feasibility and availability of technology
• Discuss the availability of transmission interconnection
• Discuss compliance with emissions limitations and other environmental requirements
• Address other factors

Witnesses for the CEDI Coalition and other intervenors urged the Commission to improve this section of the Settlement and, instead, to require Alliant to file an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and to ensure that Alliant provides a “more comprehensive, objective, transparent, and stakeholder engaging” process.” (pg. 53)In addition, given that this will be the third mandated RES for Alliant in four years, the intervenors urged the Commission to establish and adopt a uniform set of requirements for an IRP. Absent statutory authority in existing legislation, the Commission decided not to impose a uniform set of requirements for an IRP. Instead, the Commission will publish, on its website, optional guidelines for utilities to follow in their resource planning processes.

These guidelines will include aspects of resource planning that the Commission thinks will be key consideration points in determining if the utility’s resource planning process was complete and reasonable. Following these guidelines will be strongly encouraged, and the Commission expects that [the] efficiency of future advance ratemaking principles and rate case proceedings will be increased if the guidelines are used.” (pg. 57)

We look forward to reviewing the Commission’s guidelines and hope they will also pertain to distribution investment planning. We also hope they will address not only planning content but process. Without strong transparency and stakeholder participation guidelines, utility resource planning is susceptible to becoming yet another tool for ratepayer taxation without representation.

We appreciate the Commission’s decision to require Alliant to publish materials associated with the RES study through the Commission’s electronic filing system instead of through email or some other platform. This will allow interested stakeholders like the CEDI Coalition to have access to this public information.

Other Contested Issues

• The Commission adopted several recommendations by the CEDI Coalition:
  • Required Alliant to file updated responses to its 2012 Management Efficiency Audit and its Stakeholder Engagement and Customer Satisfaction Plan within six months after final rates are implemented. (pp. 133-138)
  • Denied Alliant's proposal to combine Standby and Supplementary customers into the same rate structure. (pp. 107-109)
  • Required Alliant to work with other interested stakeholders, such as parties to this docket, on determining the feasibility of rates that will allow growth in the area of air-source heat pumps. (pp. 124-125)
  • Required Alliant to provide an update to the Commission within 180 days about when customers will be able to use the updated online tools to evaluate the impact of the rate increase. (pp. 126-127)

• The Commission denied some CEDI Coalition recommendations:
  • To require IPL to propose programs and tariffs to reduce the increased energy burden for low-income households. Denied because discriminatory rates are prohibited under Iowa law. (pp. 123-124)
  • To require IPL to limit annual customer cost increases to its goal of less than inflation. Denied as “untenable.” “[T]he Commission must allow rate-regulated utilities the opportunity to earn a fair return on prudent investments.” (pp. 125-126)

• The Commission took no action on some CEDI Coalition recommendations because they were not specific issues in this rate case:
  • To require IPL to conduct a hosting capacity study for the installation of privately-owned renewable energy and energy storage facilities on Alliant’s distribution network. The Commission invited the CEDI Coalition to develop this concept further and to propose it in an upcoming rate case. The Commission noted that Alliant “is free to conduct the study if it determines that it will benefit IPL and its customers”. (pp. 128-129)
  • To deny any requests by Alliant to modify net metering tariffs. Alliant has not proposed any such changes in this rate case. (pp. 128-129)
  • To deny any attempts by IPL to implement the full- and partial-requirements distinction to the residential and commercial ratepayer classes and to rescind the Commission’s approval of the full- and partial-requirements distinction for the Large General Service customer class. The Commission noted that Alliant is not proposing to implement this distinction for residential and commercial customers in this rate case and noted that it would need more information in a future rate case to determine whether the full- and partial requirements distinction should be rescinded. (pp. 129-130)

Next Steps

The CEDI Coalition includes 50 Iowa communities that receive electric service from Alliant, and 13 county-level clean energy districts in Iowa that include Alliant electric service territory. 

The Clean Energy Districts of Iowa (CEDI) created the Coalition to give voice to Alliant communities and customers experiencing the runaway train of Alliant Energy’s high electric rates. 

As noted above, one issue that the Coalition raised in testimony is the need for the Commission to order a comprehensive and participatory Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process to cover generation resources, and an Integrated Distribution Planning (IDP) process to cover distribution grid investments. 

IRP and IDP may sound wonky and intimidating, but they are really just robust planning processes designed to ensure ratepayers only pay for what they really need. These planning processes should be separate dockets, comprehensive of all utility investments, and fully transparent and participatory so that ratepayers and communities have meaningful rights in the decision-making process. 

Though other intervenors agreed with the CEDI Coalition on the need for robust and participatory IRP, the settlement proposed a “Resource Evaluation Study” that is a relatively meaningless and poor substitute for a quality IRP process. To make matters worse, the proposed settlement pre-authorized an unprecedented level of utility distribution grid spending, with no meaningful IDP process whatsoever.

While the Commission did not choose to modify the proposed settlement and implement meaningful IRP and IDP, it did say it would be publishing guidelines that it strongly encourages utilities to follow.  We look forward to reviewing the Commission’s guidelines.

These planning processes can also be required by the Iowa Legislature. Indeed, a legislative mandate was suggested by a recent London Economics study ordered by the Legislature, and commissioned by the Iowa Utilities Commission.

CEDI intends to support any legislative attempts to mandate IRP and IDP during the next session of the Iowa Legislature. Please be in touch with us if you would like to learn more about how to advance IRP and IDP in Iowa. 

Finally, communities, like all customers, have significant opportunities to reduce bills through the pursuit of energy efficiency and renewable energy options. CEDI is now offering technical assistance services to communities in certain counties, so please contact us if your community may be interested in such assistance.

DOWNLOAD this CEDI Coalition FULL REPORT 09-20-24 (PDF)
DOWNLOAD an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)

CEDI Experience with Iowa Utilities Commission Case Intervention

The Clean Energy Districts of Iowa (CEDI) is an Iowa non-profit corporation and an association of clean energy districts in Iowa. There are currently 13 legally incorporated energy districts located in Allamakee, Cerro Gordo, Clayton, Delaware, Dubuque, Howard, Jackson, Johnson, Linn, Muscatine, Polk, Tama, and Winneshiek counties. Additional counties are in the planning stages. Clean Energy Districts provide local leadership to energy customers and communities during the clean energy transition.

CEDI and its member energy districts have considerable experience at the Iowa Utilities Commission. In 2019-20, the Winneshiek Energy District led the Decorah Area Group, which was an official intervenor in Alliant Energy’s last rate case and helped secure a significant 38% reduction in the rate increase. The company had originally proposed a $204 million revenue requirement but was only awarded $127 million by the Board.

More recently, the Clean Energy Districts of Iowa was an official intervenor in Black Hills Energy’s rate case and joined in a settlement agreement with the Office of the Consumer Advocate that secured a 44% reduction in BHE’s proposed increase. The company had originally proposed a $10,544,007 increase to base rates but was only awarded $5,906,519 by the Commission.

CEDI is also currently an official intervenor and has submitted multiple rounds of testimony in the dockets at the Iowa Utilities Commission regarding the five-year energy efficiency plans submitted by Alliant Energy, MidAmerican Energy Company, and Black Hills Energy.