28086.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. FOR APPROVAL OF COST OF SERVICE ALLOCATION AND RATE DESIGN. )
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. UWI-W-98-3

ORDER NO. 28086

On May 26, 1999, the Commission issued final Order No. 28043 in Case No. UWIW983. As part of its Order the Commission awarded intervenor funding to Ms. Sharon Ullman in the amount of $589.84. Ms. Ullman had requested $2,179.84 (53 hours @ $40/hr ($2,120) plus $59.84 expenses).
In its Order the Commission stated:
. . .As pertains to the Application of Ms. Ullman, we find that her Petition satisfies the underlying requirements of Idaho Code § 61-617(a) and IDAPA 31.01.01.165. Ms. Ullman’s contribution to our decision in this case, however, we find was not nearly as significant as the Idaho Citizens Coalition, which offered a witness better able to provide meaningful analysis, testimony and exhibits.

. . .Based on our review and consideration of the record and Ms. Ullman’s related contribution to our decision, we are unable to justify an award, however, equal to the amount requested. We instead award Ms. Ullman $589.84, an amount that we find to be just and reasonable.

On June 11, 1999, Ms. Ullman filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration regarding the amount of intervenor funding awarded to her. I.C. 61-626. Ms. Ullman suggests that the Commission reconsider the value of her input.
Of the six questions needing Commission consideration and decision spelled out in the Commission Order, Ms. Ullman contends two were raised by no party other than herself:
Further public hearings (the need for such public input) and
Issues regarding intervenor funding (Ullman recommendation that the Commission look more closely at requests for intervenor funding and apportion the cost of that funding to the appropriate ratepayers).
Additionally, Ms. Ullman reminds the Commission that she recommended the need for more public education regarding rate structure and also recommended no change to the customer charge.
Ms. Ullman contends that her expertise lies in her understanding of the community, its agencies, the people within the community who are affected by utility rate changes and access to information.
Should future potential intervenors come to fear that if their recommendations are not fully adopted by the Commission, that they will then be unable to obtain intervenor funding, Ms. Ullman contends that this could have a chilling effect on future intervenor participation in public utilities cases. Such a lack of intervention, Ms. Ullman states, would be a great loss for utility customers.—Citing her individual participation and contributions in prior United Water cases.
Ms. Ullman contends that she has previously made no effort to provide “expert” witnesses, as she is keenly aware of the cost of intervention that is passed on to ratepayers.
Ms. Ullman notes that more than 8% of the population of Ada County (more than 20,000 people) are living at or below the poverty level. It is these people, she contends, that deserve representation in United Water rate cases.

United Water Reply
On June 24, 1999, United Water Idaho Inc. (United Water; Company) filed a response to Ms. Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration. The Company notes that it has previously expressed its view questioning the wisdom of granting intervenor funding to individuals who have no delegated authority to represent any portion of the public and who act only in a self appointed capacity.
United Water additionally provides comment on Ms. Ullman’s participation in prior cases and provides the following observations regarding her contribution to the present case:
Ms. Ullman suggested or made a motion to have further hearings. This suggestion or motion was denied. If intervenor funding were to be based upon how many issues an intervenor raises and the Commission addresses, the intervenor could simply continue to make frivolous motions, which the Commission would have to deny. The intervenor could then claim a large percentage of the Commission’s findings address their motions.

Ms. Ullman claims credit for intervenor funding being denied for the Coalition of United Water Customers. The denial of this funding was based on the Commission’s review of the statutes, which was raised by the Company. Ms. Ullman’s suggestion was that intervenor funding be passed along to different classes of customers, which was denied. For example, Micron’s rates include a portion of intervenor funding for Sharon Ullman and the Idaho Citizens Coalition.

United Water recommends that the Petition for Reconsideration be denied.

COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Commission has reviewed and considered its prior Order No. 28043, Ms. Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration and the Company’s related reply. We note that the award of intervenor funding to Ms. Ullman in this case was the result of extensive deliberation and consideration of the decision criteria set out in Rule 165 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.165.01. The amount awarded Ms. Ullman correctly and accurately reflects our deliberation. We continue to find the amount awarded Ms. Ullman to be fair and just and we find no compelling reason to revisit or reconsider the matter. Accordingly, we find it reasonable to deny Ms. Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over United Water Idaho Inc., a water utility, and its Application in Case No. UWI-W-98-3 and the related Petition for Reconsideration filed by Ms. Ullman in said case pursuant to the authority and power granted the Commission under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.

O R D E R
In consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and the Commission does hereby deny Ms. Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration of our prior final Order No. 28043 and the amount of intervenor funding awarded to her. Reference Idaho Code § 61-626(2).
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.  may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this _______ day of June 1999.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary

vld/O:UWI-W-98-3sw3

ORDER NO. 28086 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
July 1, 1999