19990625.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN RANDY LOBB
COMMISSIONER SMITH GEORGE FINK
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER RICK STERLING
MYRNA WALTERS JUDY STOKES
DON HOWELL RON LAW
STEPHANIE MILLER DAVID SCOTT
TONYA CLARK WORKING FILE

FROM:

DATE: JUNE 25, 1999

RE: CASE NO. UWI-W-98-03 (United Water)
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION—ORDER NO. 28043

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. Nevertheless, we find that Ms. Ullman is an inveterate champion of the low and fixed income customer. Her presentation of this view assures that it is considered in our deliberations. 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 (attached) 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.
Regarding the Commission’s acknowledgement that she is an inveterate champion of the low and fixed income customers—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 filed a response to Ms. Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration. (attached). 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 Decision
Should Ms. Ullman’s Petition for Reconsideration be granted or denied? Should the amount awarded Ms. Ullman be changed? The deadline for Commission decision in this matter is July 9, 1999.

vld/M:UWI-W-98-03-sw2

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3