20230731Direct Testimony of Darrington.pdf

PETER RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 N.27TH ST.
BOISE, IDAHO 83702
TELEPHONE: [phone] I
peter@richardsonadam s. com
ATTORNEYS F'OR UNITED ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.
BEFORE THB IDAHO PUBLIC UTILTTIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF UNITED
ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S FORMAL
COMPLATNT FOR VIOLATION
OF CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO
ELECTRIC STAB ILTZATTON ACT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. C15-E-23-01
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF MICHAEL T.
DARRINGTON
FOR TINITE,D ELECTRIC
CO-OP, INC.
RECEIVED
2023 JULY 31, 2023 4:37PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
I a. Please state your name, business address and present
2 position with United Blectric Co-opo Inc.
A. My name is Michael T. Danington and my business address isJ
4 1330 21't Street, Heyburn, Idaho,83336. I am the General Manager of
5 United Electric Co-op, Inc
a. Would you briefly describe United Electric Co-op?
A. United Electric Co-op, Inc.l is a member-owned, non-profit
8 electric cooperative which was incorporated in 1997, as a result of the
9 consolidation of unity Light and Power in Burley, Idaho, and Rural Electric
l0 Company in Rupert, Idaho. United Electric began functional operations as
ll one utility on January l, 1998. The Board of Directors from each previous
12 cooperative were combined to form the new, and current, 8-member board.
13 united Electric provides service to Minidoka and Cassia counties with
approximately 620 miles of line to about 4,900 customers with 7,200 meters.
6
7
14
15 United Electric's power sales generally consist of 30o/o residential, 20yo
16 general service, commercial, and lighting, 3l% industrial, and 19%
17 irrigation. The primary source of United Electric's wholesale energy is the
18 Bonneville Power Administration and market purchases
I Sometimes herein referred to as "united Electric" or "united"
Darrington, Di 1
United Electric Co-op
c l5-E-23-01
î-t
Would you please describe your responsibilities as the General
2 Manager of United Blectric Co-op?
A. My primary areas of responsibility include managing the day-
4 to-day business operations, administration, coordination, and control of
5 United Electric as well as the development of long and short-range plans,
6 work and safety programs, and budgets for consideration and approval by
7 the cooperative's Board of Directors. In addition, my responsibilities include
8 providing vision, advice, and assistance to the Board of Directors regarding
9 policy needs and business objectives to advance the mission of the
10 cooperative and provide effective guidance for the operation of the
11 organization
a. Would you briefly describe your educational backgroundl2
l3 and professional experience?
l4 A. I received a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in
l5 Business Management and a Master of Public Administration degree from
16 Boise State University. I have attended several electric utility courses,
17 including "Practical Skills for the Electric Industry," offered through New
l8 Mexico State University's Center for Public Utilities. Priorto joining United
19 Electric, I was employed by the ldaho Power Company. My work experience
Darrington, Di 2
United Electric Co-op
c 15-E-23-01
2
with Idaho Power included energy eff,rciency analysis and evaluation,
integrated resource planning and analysis, system operations coordination,
aJ forecasting, energy contract negotiation and administration, and
4 participation in numerous regulatory proceedings. In addition, I previously
5 served as a Utility Analyst at the Idaho Public Utilities Commission where I
6
7
8
was involved in utility rate cases and analysis of utility applications.
a. What is the scope of your testimony in this proceeding?
A. My testimony is being filed in response to this Commission's
9 Order No. 35855 that was issued on July 2I of this year. In that Order the
Commission requires the parties to this case to file hearing briefs with10
I I supporting affidavits and exhibits along with a "recitation of the party's
12 position, and any factual support for that position", and "if the parties intend
l3 to call witnesses, the parties shall also file prepared testimony."
t4 a. Why did united Blectric decide to file testimony in this
l5 case?
l6 United Electric thanks the Commission for its invitation to the parties
17 to provide testimony via a witness who will appear at the hearing. I believe
l8 it will be helpful to the Commission to hear, firsthand, United Electric's story
and understand the motivation that caused United Electric to, reluctantly,
Darrington, Di 3
United Electric Co-op
c 15-E-23-01
l9
I lodge its formal complaint against the City of Burley. My pref,rled testimony
2 responds directly to the Commission's request and provides the factual
J support underpinning our position that the Suntado plant, that is now under
4 construction, is wholly located within the boundaries of United Electric's
5
6
duly established service territory
a. Are you sponsoring any Bxhibits that accompany your
7 testimony?
A. Yes. I am sponsoring Exhibits 6 and 12 to my testimony
9 Exhibit 6 is the same Exhibit 6 in LJnited Electric's Complaint and Exhibit
l0 12 is the same Exhibit 12 from United Electric's Complaint. The
1l Commission is certainly free to reference and rely upon either the exhibits
12 in [Jnited Electric's Complaint or in my testimony. I simply reproduced the
l3 exhibits here for the convenience of the Commission
a. What is your understanding of the factual question to be
8
t4
15 resolved in this proceeding?
16 A. Several of the City of Burley's2 responses to United Electric's
t7 Complaint presents the Commission with a factual dispute as to where the
l8 respective boundaries of the two utilities are located with respect to the new
Darrington, Di 4
LJnited Electric Co-op
c 15-E-23-01
2 Sometimes referred to herein as "Burl"y."
I Suntado plant. Specifically, the Commission quoted United Electric's
2 Complaint atParagraph 13 and Burley's answer to that Paragraph as follows:
[United]: 13. Exhibit 6, in addition to showing the location of the
proposed new Suntado facility, also shows the boundary between the
City of Burley's service territory and lJnited Electric's service
territory. As is apparent from Exhibit 6, although the Suntado site
abuts on two sides the boundary dividing the City and United's
respective service territories, it is entirely with the boundaries of
United' s exclusive service territory.
fBurley]: 13. The Respondents deny the allegations of Paragraph 13.
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
il
t2
t4
t9
a. In light of Burley's denial of the truth of United Electric's
13 assertions in its Complaint at Paragraph 13, have you had an
opportunity to review and confirm the veracity of lJnited Electric's
l5 assertion in that Paragraph, and if so, what are your conclusions?
l6 A. I was surprised at Burley's denial of the verity of Exhibit 6 to
17 our Complaint. I therefore double checked the accuracy of the map by
l8 comparing it to the maps we have on file related to the service territory
agreements [Jnited Electric has (through its predecessor utility) with Burley.
22
23
24
20 In addition, on May 12,2023,1visited the law office of Parsons, Smith,
2l Stone, Loveland, and Shirley in Burley, Idaho, which is the same law office
that represented United Electric in its 2003 application to the Commission
regarding the Territory Agreements and Amendments between lJnited
Electric and Burley, in Case No. GNR-E-03-03. [n reviewing the case file of
Darrington, Di 5
United Electric Co-op
c t 5-E-23-01
7
I the attorney representing United Electric, I found the service territory map
2 that was agreed to by United Electric and Burley and confirmed that it
I
-')matches the service territory map on file at United Electric and Exhibit 6
4 As a result of that double (indeed triple checking) I can state with conf,rdence,
5 and under oath, that Exhibit 6 to our complaint (reproduced as Exhibit 6 to
6 my testimony) is an accurate depiction of the service territory boundary
between United Electric and Burley and that the Suntado plant is squarely
8 and wholly located on the United Electric side of the boundary. For ease of
9 the Commission's reference, the map the accuracy of which I am certain, is
l0 attached as Exhibit 6 to United Electric's complaint and as Exhibit 6 to my
I I testimony herein
t2 a. Did the Commission's Order raise other factual issues that
l3 were denied in Burley in its response to [Jnitedos Complaint?
A. Yes. The Commission next quoted from United's Complaint at
l5 Paragraph 17 along with Burley's response to United's Paragraph 17
t4
t6
l7
18
l9
20
2l
fUnited]:3 The location of the Suntado proposed processing plant on
the site in question may be generally described as being bounded by
16th Street on the south, the railroad on the east and roughly by
Washington Street on the west. The northern and eastern boundaries
of the lot are conterminous with the existing boundary separating
United's service territory from the City's service territory. It is located
3 Quoting Paragraph 17 of United Electric's Complaint in its entirety
Darrington, Di 6
United E,lectric Co-op
c l s-E-23-01
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
at approximately the 1200 through 1600 blocks on the north side of
16th Street and west of the railroad right-oÊway in the City of Burley.
fBurley]: 1 7. The Respondents deny the allegations of Paragraph 17 .
a. What was your response when you noted Burley's denial of
the verity of United's assertions in Paragraph 17?
A. Again, I was surprised by their denial of what I know to be the
8 factual assertion as to the existing boundary between United Electric's and
9 Burley's electric systems. I therefore double and triple checked our maps
l0 and the existing service territory allocation agreements. I again concluded
1l that Burley is mistaken in its denial of the legitimacy of our existing
t2 boundaries. I can also attest to the accuracy of our assertions in Paragraph
13 17.
t4
t6
l5 identified in its Order No.35855?
A. The f,rnal quotation in the Commission's Order is in reference
a. What was the last factual disparity the Commission
a. Again, what was your response to Burleyos denial of United
17 to Paragraph 18 of United Electric's Complaint:
[IJnited] 18. The site in question is wholly located within the
Commission approved service territory of IJnited Electric co-op, Inc.
fBurley]: 18. The Respondents deny the allegations of Paragraph 18.
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23 Blectric's assertion that the Suntado site is wholly within United's
Darrington, Di 7
lJnited Electric Co-op
c l5-E-23-01
2
I exclusive electric service territory?
A. My response was the same as with the first two denials
-t discussed above. I checked to ensure our allegations were factually correct
and I concluded that, indeed, all of the allegations in our complaint are
5 factually accurate -- including Paragraph 18. I also noted several factual
6 inconsistencies in Burley's Answer that suggest perhaps the City hasn't been
7 very thorough in vetting is Answer.
a. Please explain.
A. Burley's response to Paragraph 11 of United Electric's
l0 Complaint is an example of Burley's contradictory answers. Paragraph 11 of
l1 United Electric' s Complaint states:
I
9
4
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
l9
In the Fall of last year, (2022), United learned that Suntado, LLC, is
in the process of developing a large milk processing plant on a tract of
land that is wholly in United's service territory.
Burley's response to Paragraph 1l includes the statement, ..."Respondents
17 (Burley) admit the Suntado facility is currently in United Electric's currently
l8 existing service territory". In addition, Burley's response to Paragraphs 32
and 33 of United Electric's Complaint provides another good example of the
20 City's internally inconsistent and contradictory answers. Paragraph 32 of
Darrington, Di 8
[Jnited Electric Co-op
c 15-E-23-01
2l United's Complaint provides
I
2
J
4
5
6
Attached as Exhibit No. 12 is a map of the proposed Suntado facility
site indicating the location of the City's newly constructed line
extension onto the Suntado site that is within the boundaries of United
Electric Coop's exclusive service territory.
Exhibit 12 to the Complaint is attached to my testimony. It consists of four
7 pages (including the cover page) of maps that contain narrative descriptions
8 of the boundaries. The Exhibit also clearly asserts that the new plant is
located in United's Service territory. But Burley doesn't deny the verity of
10 Exhibit 12 to United Electric's complaint. Instead, Burley says that, "the
1l Respondents state that Exhibit I2 speaks þr themselves." At the same time,
12 however, Burley denied [Jnited Electric's assertions in Paragraphs 32 and 33
l3 referencing the fac| Ihat Exhibit 12 contains maps showing the City's
14 incursion into United Electric's exclusive service territory.
l5 a. What do you conclude from these apparent contradictions?
A. The City's Answer states that the maps contained in Exhibit 12
9
l6
l9
17 to the Complaint speak for themselves, and I certainly agree. The maps are
l8 unambiguous in that they clearly show the City's incursion into United's
exclusive service territory. By admitting that Exhibit 12 to United's
20 Complaint, (Exhibit 12 to my testimony here) is accurate - e.g. it speaks for
2l itself while denying the verity of the paragraphs that introduce Exhibit 12 in
the very same 'breath' suggests that the City's Answer is not well thought
Darrington, Di 9
United Electric Co-op
c 15-E-23-01
22
2
5
I
I out and that its denials as well as its admissions are not reliable. In other
words, the Commission would be well within the bounds of reason to reject
3 Burley's denials of the factual assertions contained in United Electric's
4 Complaint.
a. Were you personally involved in the drafting and
6 negotiation of the service territory agreements at issue in this
7 proceeding?
A. No. I am relatively new at United Electric. I have therefore, of
9 necessity, relied on United's files, mapping systems and other original and
l0 verified copies of documents, Commission orders, maps, pleadings and
1l coffespondence to arrive confidently at my conclusions relative to the
12 location and existence of the existing boundaries between United Electric
13 and Burley. In addition, however, until just last year three members of
United Electric's Board of Directors were present and participated to various
15 degrees when those agreements were negotiated and approved. Today
16 United still has one Board member from that time. I have gained valuable
background on the salient issues that were motivating the parties back then
l4
17
l8 as a result of discussions with those three individuals.
a. Do you have any other comments relative to Burley's denial
Darrington, Di l0
United Electric Co-op
c15-E-23-01
l9
4
I of United Electric's assertions that the Suntado plant location is wholly
2 located in United Electric's service territoryo which service territory
3 boundaries have been approved by order of this Commission?
A. Yes. Burley does not deny any of the allegations in the first
5 section of United's Complaint (Section I A. pages 2 - 5, paragraphs I
6 through 10). That Section lays the foundation for United's assertion of the
7 existence and location of the service territory boundaries separating the two
8 utilities. That section references the agreements, maps, and Commission
9 orders that have comprised the lPUC-sanctioned 'lay of the land' between
10 United Electric and Burley's utility for the past thirty-plus years. It is
1l inconsistent and contradictory for Burley to acquiesce in the validity of the
12 foundational documents creating our mutual boundaries while at the same
l3 time denying the very existence of those boundaries in the subsequent pages
of its Answer to our complaint.l4
l5 a. Do you have any final observations?
l6 A. Yes. United Electric very much appreciates the Commission's
17 time and attention in this matter. Be assured that United Electric does not
l8 avail itself of the Commission's complaint process lightly. IJnited Electric
l9 has, and continues to, endeavor to work productively and cooperatively with
Darrington, Di l1
United Electric Co-op
c 15-E-23-01
6
7
I its neighbors (including the City of Burley). In addition, United Electric
2 appreciates the Commission's suggestion that the parties engage in
3 settlement discussions, and we remain available to participate in good faith
4 in such discussions. In the interest of discretion, I will not detail the
5 existence andlor nature of such discussions that have taken place in the past
- suffice it to say that United Electric is always willing to work with its
neighbors to craft mutually agreeable solutions to common problems.
Q. Does this complete your pre-filed direct testimony?
9 A. Yes, it does.
Darrington, Di 12
United Electric Co-op
cl5-E-23-01
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifu that on this 3l't day of July 2023,I caused to be delivered via electronic
mail only the foregoing prefiled direct testimony of Michael T. Danington in IPUC Docket No.
CI5-E-23-01 on the following Parties:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
[e-mail]. gov
.idaho.sov
Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General
chris.burdin@puc. idaho. sov
The City of Burley
Jaxon Munnso Counsel
[e-mail]
Brent Wallin
bwallin@ burleyidaho.org
By
J. Richardson, I # 3t95
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF UNITED
ELECTRTC CO.OP, INC.'S FORMAL
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO
ELECTRTC STABLIZATTON ACT.
Docket No. Cl5-E-23-01
EXHTBIT NO. 6
TO MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON'S DIRECT TESTIMONY
(Note that Mr. Darrington's two exhibits are reproduced from United Electric Co-op, Inc.'s
Complaint and are labeled herein to match the numbered exhibits in the Complaint. Thus, Mr.
Darrington's two exhibits are numbered"6u and"l2" respectively which are reproduced from
Exhibits 6 and 12 from United's Complaint)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BEFORE THE
TDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.,
Complainant,
THE CITY OF BURLEY, IDAHO,
Respondent.
Docket No
UNITED ELECTRTC CO-OP INC.'S
FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
OF CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO ELECTRIC
STABILTZATION ACT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TINITED ELECTRIC CO-OP'S
EXHIBIT NO. 6
Map of the City of Burley with the proposed Suntado site circled. The line marking the
boundary between the City's service area and United's service area is the dark line generally
encompassing the City's area in the center of the map.
l
t
.J
iû
I
t ¿.
+
F t Iståttt{
flüír'$t
rf
I
rl
litÉi*. " + '
I
r
s
' fi¡t'; .,' 1 -i .Ë-t' #Ë+{rrå
UNITED ELECTRI(
SERVICE TERRITOÍ
CITY OF BURLEY - SOUTI
!1
ä
T
i;---'
a
ð¡
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSTON
IN THE MATTER OF UNITED
ELECTRIC CO.OP, INC.'S FORMAL
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO
ELECTRIC STABLIZATION ACT.
Docket No. C15-E-23-01
EXHIBIT NO. 12
TO MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON'S DIRECT TESTIMONY
(l',lote that Mr. Darrington's two exhibits are reproduced from United Electric Co-op, Inc.'s
Complaint and are labeled herein to match the numbered exhibits in the Complaint. Thus, Mr.
Darrington's two exhibits are numbered"6" and"l2" respectively which are reproduced from
Exhibits 6 and 12 from United's Complaint)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILTTIES
COMMISSION
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, [NC.,
Complainant,
THE CITY OF BURLEY, IDAHO,
Respondent.
Docket No.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO.OP INC.'S
FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION
OF CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO ELECTRIC
STABILIZATION ACT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
LTNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP'S
EXHIBIT NO. 12
Exhibit 12 consists of the following three pages.
Exhibit 12
Page I of4
EXHIBIT 12,page2of 4.
United's service territory is to the left (west) of the Burley/United boundary line that runs along
the railroad tracks and then jogs to the west along the northern border of the site. The red line
("City of Burley Service Line") is the new service line recently constructed by the City of Burley
from its existing line on 16th street. United serves all of the homes on l6th street shown on this
map, including the home in the southeast corner of the Customer Property/Plant Site. The City
serves all of the mobile homes shown on the map that are on the east side of the railroad tracks.
The shown on the northwest corner of the is old U.S. 30l
É.';â:i1,1
Exhibit 12
Page2 of 4
d
i
I
)
,t :_ l
Exhibit 12page 3 of 4.
New City of Burley service pole in United Service Tenitory on Suntado site
, 1'. -:.'. :. 1 "i' .t
,.,..,.,., - t_ ,:.;,i ¡
Exhibit l2
Page 3 of4
EXHIBIT 12,page 4 o14.
Exhibit 12
Page 4 of 4