20190104Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM:BRANDON KARPEN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: JANUARY 3,2019
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF SUEZ WATER
IDAHO,INC., TO ACQUIRE EAGLE WATER COMPANY.
CASE NOS. SUZ-W-18-02, EAG-W-18-01
On November 15, 2018, Suez Water Idaho, and Eagle Water Company, Inc. (ointly, the
"Applicants"), filed a Joint Application requesting that the Commission approve a proposed
acquisition of Eagle Water by Suez. On December 7,2018, the Commission issued notice of the
application, and set an intervention deadline of December 28, 2018. The following parties timely
requested intervention: The City of Eagle, the City of Boise, the Community Action Partnership
of Idaho ("CAPAI"), the Eagle Water Customer Group ("EWCG"), and Citizens Allied for
Integrity and Accountability ("CAIA").
On January 3,2079, Suez filed an answer to the intervention petitions. Suez stated it did
not object to intervention by the City of Eagle and the City of Boise. With regard to CAPAI,
EWCG, or CAIA, Suez requested that intervention be conditionally granted.
Specifically, Suez asked that CAPAI's intervention be limited to issues relating to Eagle
Water. Suez objected to "[a]ny broad reexamination of Suez's low-income programs affecting all
Suez customers," and argued that any such discussion "should instead take place in Suez's next
general rate case." Answer at 3. Suez thus asked the Commission to let CAPAI intervene on the
condition that CAPAI not be allowed to broaden the case into a reexamination of the low-income
programs for all Suez customers. Id. at 5.
Regarding EWCG and CAIA, Suez noted that both groups purportedly represent identical
interests, but neither "identifies a unique interest or class of ratepayers it seeks to represent [or]
how it will contribute to relevant issues in a manner distinct from the Cities or CAPAI." Id. at 4.
Suez also noted the two groups share one business address: 8770 W. Chaparral Road, Eagle Idaho
DECISION MEMORANDUM I
83616. Id. Suez thus expressed concern that the two entities l) may not have a direct or substantial
interest in this proceeding;2) are in fact the same; and 3) would unduly broaden the issues of the
underlying proceeding. Id. Accordingly Suez asked the Commission to conditionally grant the
intervention by EWCG and CAIA "subject to a later determination as to whether their intervention
is in the public interest." Id. at 5.
INTERVENTION
Commission Rule of Procedure 74 states:
If a petition to intervene shows direct and substantial interest in any part of the
subject matter of a proceeding and does not unduly broaden the issues, the
Commission or the presiding officer will grant intervention, subject to reasonable
conditions. Ifit later appears that an intervenor has no direct or substantial interest
in the proceeding, or that the intervention is not in the public interest, the
Commission may dismiss the intervenor from the proceeding.
IDAPA 31.01.01.074. Further, the Commission has stated that "[t]he Legislature has declared it
the policy of this state to encourage participation at all stages of all proceedings before the
conrnrission."Order No. 33512 (citing Idaho Code $ 6l-617A). l.ikewise, "the Commission
has liberally allowed interventionwhere the purposes of intervention, as described in Rule 74 of
the Rules of Procedure, are served. /r/.
COMMISSION DECISION
A. Does the Commission wish to grant the intervention of:
I . The City of Eagle and the City of Boise;
2. CAPAI;
3. EWCG; and CAIA?
B. Does the Commission wish to grant CAPAI's petition to intervene on the condition that
CAPAI not raise issues related to Suez's low-income programs?
C. Does the Commission wish to grant EWCG and CAIA's petitions to intervene on the
condition that they be subject a later determination as to whether their intervention is
in the public interest?
-€.
Karpen
Deputy Attomey General
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2