20170501_5251.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: DAPHNE HUANG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: APRIL 26, 2017

SUBJECT: PETITIONS TO INTERVENE OUT OF TIME BY ROCK ROLLING
PROPERTIES IN IDAHO POWER’S APPLICATION FOR CPCN IN
WOOD RIVER VALLEY, CASE NO. IPC-E-16-28

In November 2016, Idaho Power Company filed an Application for a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to make system improvements in the Wood River
Valley. The Commission issued a Notice of Application and Order setting a deadline of
December 20, 2016, for petitions to intervene. The Commission received and granted timely
intervention petitions from Kiki Tidwell, Laura Midgeley, the Sierra Club, the Idaho
Conservation League, and the City of Ketchum. Order Nos. 33675, 33683. The Commission
issued a Notice of Schedule and Notice of Technical Hearing on January 26, 2017, adopting the
schedule proposed by the parties in an informal scheduling conference. Order No. 33705. In
February, the Commission granted a late-filed petition to intervene by CoxCom, LLC. Order
No. 33711.
On April 18, 2017, Rolling Rock Properties, LLC and Rolling Rock Properties #2
(Petitioners), LLC filed Petitions to Intervene out of time. The Commission received no
objections by the April 25 deadline per Rule 75. The Rolling Rock Petitions are now before the
Commission.
LATE PETITIONS TO INTERVENE
Commission Rules provides that a petitioner seeking intervention must state its
“direct and substantial interest . . . in the proceeding.” IDAPA 31.01.01.072. Petitions to
intervene that are not timely filed “must state a substantial reason for delay.” IDAPA
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
31.01.01.073. “The Commission may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene that are
not timely filed for failure to state good cause for untimely filing, to prevent disruption, prejudice
to existing parties or undue broadening of the issues, or for other reasons.” Id. Also,
“Intervenors who do not file timely petitions are bound by orders and notices earlier entered as a
condition of granting the untimely petition.” Id.
ROLLING ROCK’S PETITIONS TO INTERVENE
Petitioners are owners of real property on the east side of Hospital Drive in Blaine
County, Idaho. Petitions at 2. Petitioners assert a number of reasons for their “direct and
substantial interest in this proceeding.” Id. at 3. According to Petitioners, the overhead
configuration of Idaho Power’s proposed transmission line along Hospital Drive, at issue in this
case, “would place the transmission line either directly abutting . . . or possibly even running
across” the Petitioners’ properties. Id. Petitioners state that such configuration “would
substantially impair the value, use, and enjoyment of the property by, among other impacts,
directly impairing the view of Bald Mountain from [Rock Rolling Properties’ lots], limiting
future beneficial uses of the propert[ies], and generally changing the character of the propert[ies]
and the[ir] surrounding area[s].” Id. Petitioners further assert they “will suffer substantial
economic impacts if, as proposed by Idaho Power, the “western boundar[ies] of [their]
propert[ies] [are] permanently marred by industrial transmission towers that may be up to 60 feet
tall with high-voltage lines.” Id. at 3.
Petitioners contend there is good cause for their late intervention because, to their
“best . . . information and belief,” they did not receive notice from Idaho Power that it would
initiate this proceeding – separate from the Blaine County conditional use permit proceedings –
and where Idaho Power would “argue that Blaine County’s land use decision would be ‘null and
void’ to the extent it conflicts with the outcome of this proceeding.” Id. at 4 (citing Idaho
Power’s Application at 14). According to Petitioners, they “more recently became aware of
Idaho Power’s position before this Commission.” Id. Petitioners also assert they have good
cause because their interest is “unique . . . [and] not currently represented in this proceeding.”
Id.
As to the potential for disruption, Petitioners note that their filing is “prior to the due
date for the first round of intervenor and staff testimony . . . and over three months in advance of
the scheduled technical hearing.” Id. at 5. Petitioners state they would consent to “be bound by
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3
orders and notices entered prior to [their] intervention,” if intervention is granted. Petitioners
further state that, if allowed to intervene, they intend to participate “as a party, and if necessary,
to introduce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, call and examine witnesses, and be heard in
argument.” Id. If granted intervention, they contend they “will not unduly broaden the issues
beyond their proper scope,” and that no party would be prejudiced. Id.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to find that Rock Rolling Properties and Rock Rolling
Properties #2 have stated good cause for their late Petitions, have identified direct and substantial
interest in this case, and will not unduly broaden the issues or prejudice other parties, and thus
grant the late Petitions to Intervene?

M:IPC-E-16-28_djh3_Late Intervention