28048.docx

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION OF UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. AND BARBER WATER CORPORATION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING THE PURCHASE BY UNITED WATER IDAHO INC. OF WATER SERVICE PROPERTIES OWNED BY BARBER WATER CORPORATION; FOR AUTHORITY TO EXPAND UNITED WATER IDAHO’S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY NO. 143 AND FOR APPROVAL OF RATES AND CHARGES.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. UWI-W-99-2
ORDER NO. 28048On April 5, 1999, a Joint Application in Case No. UWI-W-99-2 was filed with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission; IPUC) by United Water Idaho Inc. (United Water) and Barber Water Corporation (Barber Water) for an Order approving the sale and transfer of the Barber Water domestic water system to United Water. The Commission has adopted a hybrid procedure in this case, written comments in lieu of a formal technical hearing and an evening hearing for public testimony.On April 28, 1999, Commission Notices of Application, Scheduling, Intervention Deadline and Hearing issued in Case No. UWI-W-99-2. The Commission’s Notice regarding intervention stated as follows:
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that persons desiring to intervene in Case No. UWI-W-99-2 for the purpose of becoming a formal party, i.e., to present evidence, to acquire rights of cross-examination, to participate in settlement or negotiation conferences, and to make and argue motions must file a Petition to Intervene with the Commission pursuant to Rules 72 and 73 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.072 and .073. The deadline for filing a Petition to Intervene is Friday, May 14, 1999.On April 28, 1999, a timely Petition for Intervention in Case No. UWI-W-99-2 was filed by Citizens’ Advocates in Public Affairs Inc., a non-profit corporation (CAPA). Reference Rules 71-75 Commission Rules of Procedure; IDAPA 31.01.01.071-075. CAPA is represented by one of its directors, Ms. Sharon Ullman. In its petition CAPA states the following:This case could be precedent-setting with regard to how certain situations regarding United Water Idaho will be resolved by the Company and the Commission. CAPA was formed to advocate on behalf of the public in government and public affairs, such as IPUC cases, and to promote easy access to public information and records. Approximately 240 residential water customers in the Golden Dawn and Barberton Mobile Home Park subdivisions will be directly affected by the outcome of this case and face the possibility of significant water rate increases. Countless others, such as future residents of Harris Ranch, could be directly affected as well. All of UWI’s customers could be affected by the outcome of the case in the future as well.CAPA was contacted by a concerned resident of the Barberton Subdivision who asked for assistance in this case. At this time it appears there are more questions than answers in this case.…On May 5, 1999, a timely Objection to CAPA’s Petition to Intervene was filed by United Water. As reflected in its filing the Company objects to the Petition of CAPA for intervention for the following reasons:1. The Petition to Intervene does not demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceeding. Reference RP 72.…Members of CAPA, whoever they might be, have no financial stake in the outcome. Their rates will not change as a result of this proceeding. The Petition does not allege any possibility of other harm…instead, the Petition contains only vague references to possible effects on customers in the future. 2. It is not clear who CAPA purports to represent in this proceeding.…If CAPA is purporting to represent the homeowners in Barberton and Golden Dawn, there is no showing that CAPA has been granted that authority…if CAPA is purporting to represent all “other” customers of United, there is significant potential for a conflict of interest between the customers of an acquired system and the customers of an acquiring system.3. The Commission Staff is fully capable of representing the general public interest. 4. There is another, more appropriate, avenue by which CAPA can participate,… i.e., as “public witnesses.” Reference RP 76.Wherefore United Water requests that the Commission deny the Petition to Intervene of CAPA and designate CAPA as a public witness.
COMMISSION FINDINGSThe Commission has reviewed the filings of record in Case No. UWI-W-99-2 including the Petition for Intervention filed by Citizens’ Advocates in Public Affairs and the Company’s related objection. Rules 71 and 72 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure related to intervention state as follows:Rule 71. Order Granting Intervention Necessary. 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. Rule 72. Form and Contents of Petitions to Intervene. Petitions to Intervene must comply with Rules 41 (initial pleading by party—listing of representatives), 61 (filing documents with the Commission—number of copies—facsimile transmission (FAX) and 62 (form of documents). The Petition must set forth the name and address of the petitioner and clearly and concisely state the direct and substantial interest of the petitioner in the proceeding. If affirmative relief is sought, the Petition must state the relief sought and the basis for granting it.…Rule 71 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure states that anyone who claims that “a direct and substantial interest in the proceeding” may Petition for Intervention. Rule 72 states that the Petition for Intervention must “clearly and concisely state the direct and substantial interest of the petitioner in the proceeding.” The Commission finds that CAPA has not articulated any direct and substantial interest in this case, nor has it raised any issues that cannot otherwise be adequately addressed in written comments or in public testimony. The Commission finds on the basis of the filings of record that intervention in these proceedings by CAPA will not serve the purposes of intervention as described by Rules 71-74 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. CONCLUSIONS OF LAWThe Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over United Water Idaho Inc. and Barber Water Corporation, water utilities, and their Joint Application in Case No. UWIW992 pursuant to the authority and power granted 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 RIn consideration of the foregoing and as more particularly described above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Intervention filed by the Citizens’ Advocates in Public Affairs (CAPA) is denied.THIS IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may file a petition for review within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order. A petition to review may request that the Commission: (1) rescind, clarify, alter, amend; (2) stay; or (3) finalize this Interlocutory Order. After any person has petitioned for review, any other person may file a cross-petition within seven (7) days. See Commission Rules of Procedure 321, 322, 323.03, 324, 325 (IDAPA 31.01.01.321 –325.)DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this day of May 1999.DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENTMARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONERPAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONERMyrna J. WaltersCommission Secretaryvld/O:UWI-W-99-2_sw