INTRVN.docx

DONALD L. HOWELL, II
Deputy Attorney General
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID  83720-0074
Tele:  [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W Washington
Boise, ID  83702-5983
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FROM RESIDENTS OF TETON COUNTY REQUEST­ING EXTENDED AREA SERVICE (EAS) TO THE GREATER IDAHO FALLS AREA

)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-T-97-8
STAFF RESPONSE TO UNTIMELY  PETITION TO INTERVENE
On April 29, 1998, the Coalition for Fair Utility Rates filed an untimely Petition to Intervene in the above-reverenced case.  The Coalition states that it represents “persons who oppose the proposed extended area service for Teton County.”  Petition at 1.  Although the Commission Staff does not object to the Commission granting intervention at this time, the Staff does object to the introduction of any new issues or the re-examination of issues already decided by the Commission.  Because the Commission has scheduled an additional public hearing for May 5, 1998, the Commission Staff requests that the Commission decide whether to grant intervention and the scope of such intervention on an expedited basis.
THE PETITION
In its Petition to Intervene, the Coalition acknowledged that its Petition was untimely because it “was unaware of the right to intervene in these proceedings until it spoke with legal counsel on April 28, 1998.  Neither the Public Utility [sic] Commission nor Teton Telecom has informed the general public that intervention by interested persons was a possible means of presenting opposition to the moving parties in this matter.”(footnote: 1)  Petition at 1.  In seeking intervention status, the Coalition asserted that granting it intervenor status “would not delay, disrupt or unduly broaden issues in this matter, nor would it prejudice the interests of the current parties.”  Id.  Although the Coalition stated that it does not intend to unduly broaden issues, it maintained that a “variety of issues” have not been addressed by the Commission.  In particular, the Coalition stated that there has been a failure to: inform the public that interested persons could intervene in this case; “adequately poll” the customers in Teton Valley to determine whether they desire EAS; prohibit the subsidization of the proposed rates for business customers; and determine whether granting EAS is “revenue neutral.”  In addition, the Coalition was concerned that “environmental issues may not have been addressed, including the acceleration of growth which may lead to further destruction of environmental quality in Teton County.” Id. at 2.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 19, 1997, the Commission initiated this case by publishing a Notice of Petition.  In Order No. 27150, the Commission combined this case with two other Silver Star EAS cases (GNR-T-96-6/97-3) and scheduled these cases for hearing.  In Order No. 27150 the Commission also included a deadline for intervention no later than October 1, 1997.  The Commission also issued a news release dated October 1, 1997, alerting customers and media of the public hearings to be held November 8, 18-19, 1997.  Staff Exhibit 106.(footnote: 2)
At the November hearings, the Staff had recommended monthly rates for Teton residential and business customers of $17.25 and $32.48, respectively.  Exhibit No. 103.  Teton recommended three rate designs, the first two of which would establish residential rates at $17.51 per month and third rate proposal would establish residential rates at $20.13; business rates at $26.48.  Teton Exhibits 4B, 2C (revised).  Under any of the proposed Company rate designs, the Company calculated that these rates would leave a residual revenue requirement ranging from $61,500 to approximately $200,000.  Order No. 27456 at 8, Teton Exhibits 2A, B, C (revised).  The Company suggested that this residual revenue requirement be met by increasing the disbursements from the Idaho Universal Service Fund (USF).  Id.
On February 12, 1998, the Commission Staff and Teton filed a Stipulation and Settlement agreement resolving the disputed issues between themselves.  In the settlement, the Staff and Teton agreed not to seek any increased distribution from the Idaho USF.  Based upon this agreement, the parties subsequently agreed and proposed higher local monthly rates for residential and business customers of $24.10 and $42.00, respectively.  Settlement at 3.  These rate increases were mitigated by elimination of the $1.59 zone charge for rural customers and the ability of residential customers to subscribe to local measured service at a rate of $16.00 per month to include 90 free minutes of usage.  All calls in excess of the 90 free minutes were proposed to be billed at a rate of $.03 per minute.  Id.
On February 27, 1998, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Order.  In its Proposed Order, the Commission proposed to adopt the stipulation.  The Notice invited members of the public and the parties to submit comments concerning the Proposed Order no later than March 20, 1998.  Also on February 27, the Commission issued a news release outlining the Commission’s intent to adopt the Stipulation and Settlement.  The news release specifically invited customers to “notify the IPUC of their support or opposition to the plan” no later than March 21, 1998.  See Exhibit No. 107.  
After reviewing the testimony and exhibits, the Stipulation and Settlement agreement, the Commission found that the proposed business and residential rates were reasonable but concluded that an additional public hearing was necessary to determine whether customers were willing to pay the rates contained in the Stipulation and Settlement.  Order No. 27456 at 10-11.  The Order also stated, that the purpose of the public hearing in Driggs was “to receive evidence regarding customers’ willingness to pay increased monthly rates ($24.10 unlimited residential; $16.00 for measured residential service; and $42.00 for single-line business service) for EAS.  Customers desiring to state a position regarding this issue are invited to testify at our hearing” on May 5, 1998.  Order No. 27456 at 13. On April 13, 1998, the Commission issued a subsequent news release outlining the Commission’s intent to conduct the May 5 hearing in Driggs.  Exhibit 108.  
DISCUSSION
Although the Staff does not oppose the Coalition’s intervention, Commission Rule 73 provides that the Commission “may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene that are not timely filed . . . to prevent disruption, prejudice to existing parties are undue broadening of the issues, or for other reasons.”  IDAPA 31.01.01.073.  This rule also provides that intervenors who “do not file timely petitions are bound by orders and notices earlier entered as a condition of granting the untimely petition.”  Consequently, Staff believes that the only issue remaining in this case is the issue of whether customers are willing to pay the proposed rates.  Order No. 27456 at 13.
Taking up the list of issues that the Coalition seeks to address would cause significant delays in the processing of this matter and unreasonably introduce new issues or broaden issues already decided by the Commission.  As set out above, the Commission has already adopted the parties’ Stipulation and Settlement determined that the proposed rates are reasonable to compensate Teton for the costs of providing EAS to its customers.
SUMMARY
As stated above, the Commission Staff does not object to the untimely intervention of the Coalition so long as the Commission conditions its intervention for the purpose of taking evidence regarding customers’ willingness to pay the rates proposed for EAS.  The Commission Staff objects to the introduction of evidence addressing new issues that the Coalition desires to present or additional evidence on those issues which the Commission has already decided.  Given the impending hearing scheduled for May 5, 1998, the Staff respectfully requests that the Commission expeditiously issue its decision regarding the Coalition’s intervention.  As such time as the Commission makes its decision, the Commission Secretary could then FAX the Commission’s decision to the Coalition.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 1st day of May 1998.

Donald L. Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General
vld/N:GNR-T-97-8.dh
FOOTNOTES
1:
1 The Commission’s Rules governing intervention are published in the Idaho Administrative Code available at various locations throughout Idaho and on the Internet.  Idaho Code §§ 67-5202, -5205.
2:
2 The Staff requests that the Commission take official notice of its press releases issued in this proceeding as contained in Exhibits 106, 107, and 108.