20050119Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO:COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM:DONOVAN E. WALKER
DATE:JANUARY 13,2005
SUBJECT:APPLICATION OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR AUTHORITY
TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE IN
THE STATE OF IDAHO - CASE NO. UWI-04-4 - PETITIONS TO
INTERVENE
On November 30, 2004, United Water Idaho Inc. filed an Application with the
Commission for authority to increase its rates and charges for water service in the State of Idaho.
On December 2, 2004, the Commission issued a Notice of Application, suspended the requested
effective date, and established December 22, 2004 as the deadline for Petitions to Intervene.
Order No. 29654. The Commission received timely petitions to intervene from five potential
parties. The Commission also received a timely response/objection to the intervention petitions
from United Water. One party, Idaho Rivers United, submitted a reply to United Water
response.
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE
City of Boise
The City of Boise filed a Petition to Intervene on December 17, 2004. The City states it
is a large municipal water user that receives service from United Water, and that this proceeding
could have significant impacts on the rates paid by the City. The City further states without the
opportunity to intervene, it would be unable to participate. The nature and quality of evidence
the City will introduce depends on the nature and effect of other evidence in this proceeding.
Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho
The Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho (CAP AI) filed a Petition to
Intervene on December 22, 2004. CAP AI states its members have a direct and substantial
DECISION MEMORANDUM
interest in this proceeding in their fight against the causes and conditions of poverty. CAP AI
submits that its involvement and participation in this proceeding is essential to a full and
meaningful consideration of United Water s proposal to consider and discuss a low-income
assistance pro gram.
Idaho Rivers United
Idaho Rivers United (IRU) filed a Petition to Intervene on December 22, 2004. IRU
states that its mission is to protect Idaho s rivers and advocate for the conservation of Idaho
water resources, and that many of its members are residential customers of United Water. IRU
states its direct and substantial interest as ensuring that customers have viable options to
conserve water and take shelter from the requested rate increases, and ensuring that United
Water provides efficient services at the lowest possible costs.
Scott L. Campbell
Scott L. Campbell filed a Petition to Intervene on December 22, 2004
, "
in his individual
capacity and on behalf (ofJ all residential rate payers of United Water Idaho, Inc.Petition of
Scott L. Campbell p. 1. Mr. Campbell further states he resides in the City of Boise, is a United
Water ratepayer, and receives water service from and pays charges to United Water. His Petition
states United Water is not entitled to a rate increase, and the Commission should decrease United
Water s rates.
Sharon Ullman
Sharon Ullman filed a Petition to Intervene on December 22, 2004. Her Petition states
she is a United Water ratepayer, she has been an intervenor in previous United Water rate cases
she has a broad knowledge of various related and relevant community issues, such as growth and
taxes, that has proven to have a direct and positive impact for United Water s ratepayers in prior
rate cases, and granting her Petition will not unduly broaden the issues in this case.
United Water s Response to Petitions
United Water does not object to the Petitions of the City of Boise and CAP AI. United
Water states if Idaho Rivers United's Petition is granted that its participation should be limited to
the issues involving United Water s conservation policies and practices. United Water objects to
the Petitions of Sharon Ullman and Scott L. Campbell.
With regard to Ms. Ullman, the Company states her petition alleges that her claim of
direct and substantial interest is based on her status as an individual ratepayer, and not as an
DECISION MEMORANDUM
authorized representative of some larger group or sub-set of ratepayers. The Company states a
direct and substantial interest" implies some interest over and above a person s status as a
ratepayer, particularly when the interests of the residential class are adequately represented by
Staff.
With regard to Mr. Campbell, United Water states the same objection to his claim of a
direct and substantial interest based upon his status as an individual ratepayer. Additionally, the
Company states Mr. Campbell's assertion that he is acting on behalf of all residential ratepayers
is not accompanied by any evidence he is authorized to do so or any identifiable group of
customers has requested his representation.
United Water suggests a party s level of participation be calibrated by that person
demonstrated degree of interest in the proceeding. The Company points out that persons desiring
to communicate their view to the Commission, but whose degree of interest does not rise to the
level of "direct and substantial" may be designated as public witnesses pursuant to IDAP A
31.01.01.076. Additionally, persons who desire to monitor the proceeding by receiving copies of
pleadings and papers may ask to be included on the Commission s interested parties list pursuant
to IDAP A 31.01.01.039.
Idaho Rivers United's Replv
IRU is the only party to file a reply to United Water s response/objection. IRU, while not
objecting to limited intervention, states United Water s suggestion to limit their participation is
too narrow, and it intends to participate in this proceeding with regard to United Water s rate
design proposals as well as the Company s conservation practices and policies, including its
funding and execution of conservation programs.
DISCUSSION
Persons not original parties to a proceeding who claim a direct and substantial interest in
the proceeding may petition for an order from the Commission granting intervention to become a
party. IDAP A 31.01.01.071. The petition must concisely state the direct and substantial interest
of the petitioner in the proceeding. IDAP A 31.01.01.072. 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. IDAP A 31.01.01.074. If it 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
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Commission may dismiss the intervenor from the proceeding. Id. Any party opposing a petition
to intervene must do so by motion in opposition. IDAPA 31.01.01.075. The party answering
or responding to the motion will have fourteen days from the time of filing of the last motion in
which to respond. IDAP A 31.01.01.256.
All parties filed timely Petitions to Intervene by December 22 , 2004. United Water filed
a timely objection to the Petitions of Sharon Ullman, Scott L. Campbell, and Idaho Rivers United
by December 29 , 2004. The only party to reply to United Water s response was Idaho Rivers
United.
COMMISSION DECISION
For each of the Petitions for Intervention: City of Boise; Community Action Partnership
Association of Idaho; Idaho Rivers United, Scott L. Campbell; and Sharon Ullman, does the
Commission wish to grant or deny the Petition to Intervene?
If a Petition is granted, does the Commission wish to Impose any conditions or
limitations at this time?
Donovan E. Walker
M: UWIWO404 dw
DECISION MEMORANDUM