20020801_222.pdf

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DECISION MEMORANDUM
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LA W
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
BILL EASTLAKE
TONY A CLARK
DON HOWELL
DAVE SCHUNKE
KEITH HESSING
RANDY LOBB
LYNN ANDERSON
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
WELDON STUTZMAN
JULY 23, 2002
CASE NO. GNR-02-04; PETITION OF FALL RIVER RURAL ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE FOR AN ORDER TO SERVE A NEW CUSTOMER
Idaho Code ~ 61-332C provides terms for "determining which electric supplier will
provide electric service for a new service entrance." If more than one electric company has an
existing service line within 1320 feet of the new customer
, "
the electric supplier whose existing
service line is nearest the new service entrance shall have the right to serve the customer.Idaho
Code ~ 61-332C(1)(c). No electric supplier may supply service to a new service entrance in
violation of the provisions of the section except as ordered by the Commission. Idaho Code
~ 61-332C(2).
On June 10, 2002, Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Fall River) filed a
letter with the Commission explaining that it had commenced service to new customer Tracy
Hall in Rigby, Idaho. Fall River states that the hook-up of Mr. Hall "was accomplished because
of a measurement by the Fall River field staff that indicated we have the right under the law to
serve Mr. Hall." Fall River s measurement to its existing service line for determining service for
DECISION MEMORANDUM
Mr. Hall apparently was in error. Fall River s letter further states that "in further measurements
and discussions with Utah Power & Light Company (now known as PacifiCorpJ it became
apparent that the measurement should have been commenced from a different point and
(PacifiCorp J would have served Mr. Hall under those conditions." Fall River asks that its letter
be construed "to be a Petition to allow Mr. Hall to remain a Fall River member and that no
disruption in service takes place.
PacifiCorp on July 17 2002, filed an Answer to the letter petition filed by Fall River.
PacifiCorp s Answer provides greater detail regarding the connection ofMr. Hall to Fall River
electrical service. PacifiCorp states its understanding "that Fall River measured the distance
from the Hall residence to the nearest point of the service drop of another consumer served by
Fall River, rather than to the nearest point on Fall River s distribution facilities from which
service could be provided to the Hall residence." Apparently PacifiCorp has the nearest existing
service line to serve Mr. Hall and pursuant to Section 61-332C would be the supplier with the
right to serve the Hall residence. PacifiCorp nonetheless agrees "that Fall River s determination
regarding its right to serve the Hall residence was an honest mistake." PacifiCorp s Answer
states that "given the circumstances of this case, including Fall River s honest mistake in its
interpretation of what was the nearest 'existing service line ' and the fact that service to the Hall
residence has been installed, PacifiCorp does not oppose Fall River s Petition.PacifiCorp
regards Fall River s letter to be a petition filed under Idaho Code 61-332C(2) for an order from
the Commission allowing the connection for Fall River to provide electrical service to the Hall
residence.
Staff recommends the Commission approve the agreement of Fall River and
PacifiCorp as a passive settlement. Commission Rule of Procedure 271 defines a passive
settlement as "one in which a party agrees to concur in, accept or not to oppose another parties
position previously on record with the Commission.Pursuant to Rule 274
, "
the Commission
may summarily accept settlement of an essentially private dispute that has no significant
implications for regulatory law or policy or for other utilities or customers." Both Fall River and
PacifiCorp regard the letter filed by Fall River as a Petition under Section 61-332C for an order
approving the service connection by Fall River to Mr. Hall. PacifiCorp in its Answer states its
agreement with the Commission issuing such an order given the circumstances of the case. Staff
DECISION MEMORANDUM
also contacted Mr. Hall and confirmed that he supports the resolution proposed by the parties
preferring that he remain a customer of Fall River.
Staff recommends the Commission issue an order approving the service connection
by Fall River to the Hall residence, since it is essentially a private dispute that has no
implications for regulatory law or for other utilities or customers.
Based on the agreement of the parties, should the Commission issue an Order
approving the Petition of Fall River for authorization to serve Mr. Hall?
~ ~
Weldon Stutzman
vldIM:GNREO204 ws
DECISION MEMORANDUM