HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201201_dh2.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM: DAYN HARDIE
MATT HUNTER
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
DATE: NOVEMBER 27 , 2020
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF SUEZ WATER IDAHO INC’S APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY TO INCREASE ITS RATES AND CHARGES FOR WATER
SERVICE IN IDAHO ; SUZ-W-20-02.
On October 21 , 2020, the Commission established a November 12, 2020 intervention
deadline for this case . Order No. 34 819. Micron filed a petition to intervene on November 18,
2020—after the intervention deadline had ru n. The issue before the Commission is whether to
grant Micron’s late petition.
RULES GOVERNING LATE PETITIONS TO INTERVENE
Commission Rules provide that a petitioner s eeking 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 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.
MICRON’S PETITION
Micron states that it did not become fully aware of SUEZ’s filing until November 6,
2020. After being made aware, Micron states it needed additional time to determine and assess the
impact of SUEZ’s Application on its operation to determine if intervention was warranted. As a
large water customer, Micron’s water expenses would increase substantially if SUEZ’s proposed
rates are implemented without change.
Micron states that if not provided an opportunity to intervene, it would be without a
means of participating in SUEZ’s rate case which could materially impact Micron. Micron intends
to fully participate in this case —if allowed to intervene. Micron states that granting its petition to
intervene would no t disrupt or prejudice existing parties because the pro ceeding has not materially
progressed beyond intervention. Micron states it would not unduly broaden the issues or prejudice
any party to the proceeding if allowed to intervene.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to grant Micron’s late petition to intervene?
____________________________
Dayn Hardie
Matt Hunter
Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\WATER\SUZ-W-20-02\memos\SUZW2002_Micron late int_dh.docx