990517_sw.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
DON HOWELL
STEPHANIE MILLER
TONYA CLARK
BOB SMITH
GEORGE FINK
RON LAW
DAVID SCOTT
WORKING FILE

FROM: SCOTT WOODBURY

DATE: May 7, 1999

RE: CASE NO. UWI-W-99-2 (UNITED WATER)
PROPOSED PURCHASE OF BARBER WATER
PETITION TO INTERVENE AND RELATED OBJECTION

On April 5, 1999, a Joint Application in Case No. UWI-W-99-2 was filed with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) 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.
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 (CAPA). (Attached) CAPA is represented by 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 governmental 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. (Attached) 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.
2. It is not clear whom CAPA purports to represent in this proceeding.
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 Decision
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.…

Pursuant to Rule 74,
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. 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 Commission may dismiss the intervenor from the proceeding.

Commission Decision
CAPA has filed a Petition to Intervene in Case No. UWI-W-99-2. The Company has filed an Objection. How does the Commission wish to proceed? Does the Commission wish to set the matter for oral argument? If not, should the Petition for Intervention be granted or denied? If granted, does the Commission wish to impose any conditions? Should the Commission choose to deny intervention, does the Commission wish to act upon United Water’s recommendation that CAPA be designated a public witness? Reference Rule 76. (Attached)
The Commission is apprised that pursuant to scheduling adopted in this case the deadline for filing written comments is June 4, 1999. An evening hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment is scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, 1999.

Scott Woodbury

vld/M:UWI-W-99-2_sw.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3