20230803United Electric Co-ops Motions.pdf

I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
t8
t9
20
2l
22
¿)
24
25
26
21
28
Peter J. Richardson
zuCHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) e38-7e01 (dd)
pglet@ ri chardsonadams.
BEFORE THE IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF UNITED ELECTRIC
CO-OP INC.'S FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF CONTRACT ENTERED
INTO PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO
ELECTRIC STABILIZATION ACT.
Case No.: C15-E-23-01
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S
MOTIONS TO; (l) STRIKE THE CITY OF
BURLEY' S EVIDENTIARY HEARING
BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T.
DARzuNGTON, (3) VACATE HEARING,
AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVTCE
TERRITORY BOUNDARIES
COMES NOW, the Complainant, United Electric Co-op, Inc.l and moves the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") to issue its order; (l) striking, in its entirety,
the "Evidentiary Hearing Brief'("Brief') filed2 on behalf of the City of Burley,3 (2) admitting
the pre-filed testimony of United's General Manager, Michael T. Darrington into the record in
this matter,4 (3) vacating the evidentiary hearing schedule for August 14,2023,and (4) affirming
I Herein "United Electric" or "United."
2 Although the City filed its Brief with the Commission, it failed to serve the same on any of the parties to this
docket causing needless delay and confusion as to whether or not the City intended to make any filing whatsoever.
3 Herein sometimes referred to as the "City."
a Mr. Darrington's affidavit in support of his testimony is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(1) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFTRM EXISTTNG SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARTES - I
RECEIVED
Thursday, August 3, 2023 4:14:22 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the extent and existence of the electric service territory boundaries approved by the Commission
in Order No. 29355 that are referenced and relied upon by United Electric in its Complaint. In
support thereof United Electric Co-op says as follows:
MOTION TO STRIKE THE CITY'S EVIDENTIARY HEARTNG BRIEF
The Commission was explicit, in Order No. 35855 establishing the opportunity for the
parties to lodge pre-hearing evidentiary briefs, that said pre-hearing evidentiary brief and the
hearing itself:
[S]hall be on the singular factual dispute concerning the physical location of the
Facility as it relates to Burley and United's respective service territories as
defined by the current agreements and amendments. For the purposes of the
evidentiary hearing the Commission shall consider the Agreements between the
parties valid and enforceable.s
The sole stated reason the Commission established the evidentiary hearing was to resolve the
question of fact related to the exact location of Burley and United's Electric's service territory
boundaries as they relate to the new Suntado processing plant ("Facility"). According to the
Commission:
Burley specifically denies some of United's Background and Factual Allegations
concerning the location of the Facility with respect to United and Burley's service
territories:
[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 United 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 within the boundaries of
United's exclusive service territory.
5 Order No. 35855 at pp. 3 - 4. Emphasis provided.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, lNC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARTNG BRtEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTTMONY OF MTCHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES.2
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
il
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
17
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[Burley]: 13. The Respondents deny the allegations of Paragraph 13.
[United]: The location of the Suntado proposed processing plant on the site in
question may be generally described as being bounded by l6th 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 tenitory. It
is located at approximately the 1200 through 1600 blocks on the north side of
16th Street and west of the railroad right-of-way in the City of Burley
[Burley]: 17. The Respondents deny the allegations of Paragraph 17
[United]: 18. The site in question is wholly located within the Commission
approved service territory of United Electric Co-op, Inc.
[Burley]: 18. The Respondents deny the allegations of Paragraph 18.6
In short, the Commission is faced with incompatible assertions of fact; to wit: United Electric's
assertion of fact that the Suntado Facility is located within its existing electric service territory
boundaries and Burley's repeated denials of United's assertions. United's factual assertions as
to the boundaries and claim that the Facility is located within its boundaries are supported by the
narrative descriptions and accompanying maps contained in Exhibits 6 and 12 to its Complaint.
Burley's denials were not supported by any offer of proof or exhibits.
Thus, the Commission in Order No. 35855 offered Burley the opportunity to make a
factual showing as to how, and on what basis, it believes that United's factual assertions are falsr
and to identifu its purported electric service territory boundaries in relation to the Suntado
Facility. Specifically, the Commission directed that,
6 Order No. 35855 atpp. I -2.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, lNC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARINC, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 3
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
l4
l5
t6
t7
l8
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The hearing briefs shall contain a statement of the issue, a recitation of the party's
position, and any factual support for that position. Each party shall also file
copies of any exhibits it expects to produce and discuss at the hearing. If the
parties intend to call witnesses, the parties shall also file prepared testimony.
Order No. 35855 also provides that
The evidentiary hearing shall be on the singular factual dispute concerning the
physical location of the facility at it relates to Burley and United's respective
service territories as defined by the current agreements and amendments.
Finally, Order No. 35855 provides that:
For the purposes of the evidentiary hearing the Commission shall consider the
Agreements between the parties valid and enforceable.T
Burley's pleading affirmatively disregards Order No. 35885's explicit ground rules, to
wit: for purposes of the evidentiary hearing, the current service territory agreements be deemed
valid and that the evidentiary briefs only address the "singular factual dispute" concerning the
location of the Facility in relation to the parties' service territory boundaries. In complete
disdain for the Commission's directive, Burley's evidentiary brief fails to even mention the
question of where the Facility is located in relation to the Parties'respective service territory
boundaries - which is the sole purpose the Commission ordered the parties to make the instant
filings in the first place.
Instead of addressing the issue at hand, Burley's Evidentiary Brief is nothing more than a
reproduction of the arguments it made in its initial filing. Indeed, except for precisely seven
additional sentences, the City's Evidentiary Hearing Brief is copied, wholesale and verbatim,
7 Id atpp.3-4
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 4
l
2
J
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
lt
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
17
l8
l9
20
2l
22
ZJ
24
25
26
27
28
from its Petition for Declaratory Order. The City complains it is being held "hostage" to the
current agreements and that the current agreements go "against the nature of democracy," and
that enforcement of the current agreements is "shocking" and that the City was duped into the
current agreements by unscrupulous lawyers whose "conflict" of interest "calls into question the
validity of [their] legal advice" and that its citizens are being "forced" to use one service provider
and that the current agreements thwart the citizens of Burley's "sacred right to vote."8 But, what
the City's Brief does not do, is identify where Suntado's Facility is in relation to the boundaries
established by the current agreements.
Because there is nothing - not even one sentence - in the City's Evidentiary Brief that
addresses the single issue demanded of it by the Commission, the City's Brief is superfluous to
the Commission's decision making process, it is irrelevant, and its pejorative posturing is
nothing more than an inappropriate hinderance (a.k.a. smoke screen) to resolving "the singular
factual dispute" at hand which is, "where is the Suntado plant?" In fact, the City's repeated
irrelevant arguments could even be considered an attempt to mislead the Commission with
assertions that are simply not true. For example, the City claims that, "Upon information and
belief, none of the individuals who exercised their responsibilities on behalf of United Electric
remain in those positions to date." In actuality, United Electric currently has one member of its
Board of Directors and, as late as last year, had three members of the United Electric Board of
Directors that were in place at the time the Service Territory Agreement with the City was
negotiated, executed, and approved by the Commission. Therefore, for all the reasons stated
8 Burley's Evidentiary Brief, passim.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, lNC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 5
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
ll
l2
t3
14
l5
16
l7
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
above, the Commission is respectfully requested to strike, in its entirety, the City's Evidentiary
Brief.
MOTION TO ADMIT THB PREFILED
TESTIMOMNY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the affidavit of Mr. Michael T. Darrington affirming,
under penalty of perjury, the truth of the matters asserted in his prefiled testimony. Mr.
Darrington's testimony directly addresses the singular factual dispute at issue by providing a
solid evidentiary foundation for the admission of and reliance on Exhibits 6 and 12 from
United's Complaint. Exhibits 6 and 12 provide graphics (maps) as well as narrative descriptions
of the location of the Suntado Facility in relation to the existing electric service tenitory
boundaries between United Electric and the City of Burley - as requested by the Commission in
Order No. 35855. Mr. Darrington's testimony is the only offer of proof on the singular question
at issue in this phase of this proceeding.
Mr.Darrington will make himself available on August 14,2023, at the scheduled hearing
in this matter. However, should the Commission grant United's Motion (addressed below) to
vacate the hearing, then the Commission is respectfully requested to admit his testimony,
pursuant to this motion, into the record as proof of the matters asserted therein - to wit, the
location of the Suntado Facility in relation to the electric service territory boundaries between the
City and United Electric, and that said Facility is located wholly and unequivocally within
United Electric's service territory.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 6
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
l2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO VACATE THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 14,2023
The City's "Evidentiary Brief'offers no evidence. It simply ignores the "singular issue
in dispute" which is the location of the Suntado Facility in relation to the service territory
boundaries of the City and United Electric.
The City's Evidentiary Brief s does reference the "anticipated testimony" of a Mr. Brent
Wallin and observes that:
[]t is anticipated Mr.'Wallin will testifu as to the City of Burley's understanding of its
action in relation to the Suntado Project.
It is not at all clear what is meant by the phrase the "City of Burley's understanding of its action
in relation to the Suntado Project." But what is clear, is that whatever it is that Mr. Wallin is
prepared to testiff about, it is not what the Commission has asked the parties to address, which is
just the single issue of the location of the Suntado Facility in relation to the electric service
boundaries between the City and United Electric. In addition, the parties were required by Order
No. 35855 to prefile their testimony if they chose to provide testimony at all. Here, again, the
City ignores the Commission's directive and instead of prefiling its testimony (as United has
done) it merely provides a vague and noncommittal reference to a possible witness' possible
testimony about an unknown subject. The City obviously has no intention of adhering to the
rules established by the Commission for the conduct of the evidentiary hearing in this matter that
was duly noticed by Commission order to resolve a discrete and singular factual dispute.
The City's has failed to make any offer of proof on the sole question at hand. It has also
ignored this Commission's directive to only address that single question in its hearing brief and
failed to prefile its witness' testimony, and indeed it has failed to even proffer a relevant topic for
its potential witness to address.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTINC SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 7
I
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
l0
ll
l2
l3
l4
l5
t6
l7
l8
19
20
2l
22
ZJ
24
25
26
27
28
There is no need to further waste this Commission's or United Electric's time and
resources chasing down the City of Burley's rabbit-hole. There is, frankly, no factual dispute as
to the location of the Suntado Facility in relation to United Electric's service territory - the
Facility is located entirely in United's Electric's service territory as is unequivocally identified in
United's Complaint and as identified in Mr. Darrington's prefiled direct testimony that is verifiec
by his affidavit attached hereto. When asked by the Commission to demonstrate otherwise - the
City tried to change the subject by complaining about how its citizens are being "held hostage"
and complaining about the City's prior unscrupulous lawyers who had conflicts of interest, and
that the "shocking" service territory agreements "go against democracy" and violate its citizens'
"sacred" right to vote. It seems the City has very strong opinions on a wide variety of topics, but
none of those topics are remotely relevant to the issue at hand.
United Electric respectfully submits an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary in light of the
City's failure to address the sole issue identified in Order No. 35855 and in light of the City's
failure to even attempt to proffer a scintilla of evidence countering United's showing that the
Suntado Facility is, indeed, wholly located within its exclusive service territory. That said,
United has already lodged the prefiled testimony of Mr. Darrrington and has cleared the decks
for his appearance in Boise on August 14,2023. Should the Commission so desire, Mr.
Darrington is prepared to appear in person and is willing to sponsor his testimony, stand for crosr
examination and respond to any questions the Commission may have for the benefit of the
record. Should the Commission decide to proceed with an evidentiary hearing however, United
will renew its relevant Motions herein and will also move to deny Mr. Wallin's offer to provide
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(l) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFIL,ED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T, DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 8
l
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
t3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
live testimony in light of the City's violation of this Commission's requirement that he first
prefìle said testimony pursuant to the schedule established in Order No. 35855.
Wherefore, United Electric Co-op, Inc. respectfully requests the Commission admit Mr.
Darrington's testimony on the record in this matter and vacate the hearing scheduled for August
14,2023.
THE COMMISSION IS RESPECTFULLY REQEUSTED TO MAKE ITS FINDING OF
FACT THAT THE SUNTADO FACILITY IS LOCATED WHOLLY AND
EXCLUSIVELY IN UNITED ELECTRIC'S SBRVICE TERRITORY
The City of Burley has declined the Commission's invitation that it explain its denials in
its Answer to United Electric Co-op's Complaint that the Suntado Facility is, in fact, located
wholly in United Electric's service territory.e Instead of a reasoned explanation of said denials,
the City's "Evidentiary Brief' goes off on wild tangentsl0 totally unrelated to the question at
hand. Because it contains nothing but irrelevancies and is entirely unresponsive to the
Commission's mandate in Order No. 35855 the City's "Evidentiary Brief' deserves to be
accorded no weight whatsoever in the Commission's deliberations. The City's offer of the
"Anticipated Testimony" of Mr. Wallin is also fatally flawed. Its proffer of proof is, like its
Brief, unrelated to the question at hand. Furthermore, the City's Anticipated Testimony fails to
even attempt to comply with the Commission's requirement that all testimony be prefiled.
e Whether the City has complied with is ethical legal obligation to conduct a thorough investigation and document
the truth of its factual assertions (or denials) in pleadings before this tribunal is a legitimate question the
Commission may want to consider in light the City's response to Order No. 35855.
'o E.g., its citizens' "sacred right to vote". Burley's Brief at p. 5.
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(I) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARTNC BRIEF, (2) ADMtr THE PREFTLED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRTNGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - 9
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United's factual assertions in its Complaint have proven to be accurate and truthful,
especially in light of the City's complete failure to even try to explain the factual basis for its
denials contained in its Answer. Furthermore, United's witness' testimony is supported by his
affidavit and his testimony directly and succinctly resolves the issue at hand - which is where is
the Suntado Facility in relation to the respective service territories of the City and United
Electric. In light of all of the foregoing, it is apparent that Mr. Darrington's testimony and his
conclusions in that testimony are unassailable and provide conclusive evidence that the Suntado
Facility is located in United Electric's exclusive service territory and that said territory is being
violated by an illegal incursion by the City of Burley as it continues to construct facilities to
provide electric service to this new enterprise - the Commission is therefore respectfully
requested to issue is order so finding.
WHEREFORE, United Electric Co-op, Inc. respectfully requests that the Commission issue its
order granting the foregoing Motions, to wit:
1. Strike the City of Burley's Evidentiary Hearing Brief in its entirety, with
prejudice,
2. Admit on the record Mr. Michael T. Darrington's prefiled testimony that is
verified by affidavit,
3. Vacate the hearing schedule in this docket for August 14,2023,
4. Issue its order finding that the Suntado Facility is being constructed on property
that is wholly located within the exclusive service tenitory of United Electric Co-op, Inc., and
5. Such other relief as the Commission deems just and fair in light of the lack of due
diligence on the City's part by its lodging of a pleading (Answer) with this Commission
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(I) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - IO
l
2
)
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
il
t2
l3
t4
l5
16
17
t8
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
containing unsupported and unsupportable denials of United's factual assertions as to its service
tenitory boundaries.
PROCEDURE
United Electric is not requesting oral argument. However, due to the short time period
pending before the hearing is scheduled in this matter (August 14,2023), United is requesting
the Commission issue its order granting the above enumerated motions on less than fourteen
days' notice. United' attorney has complied with Rule 256 of the Commission's Rules of
Procedure by personally informing Mr. Burdin, Deputy Attorney General (PUC Staff) and Mr.
Munns' secretary/assistant (counsel for the City) of the pendency of these Motions and of
United's request for substantive and procedural relief on less than fourteen days'notice.
Counsel for United will continue to attempt to make personal direct contact with Mr. Munns,
however his secretary/assistant has provide assurances that he has been informed of the
attempted direct contact.
Dated tnir?6 of August 2023
ISB # 3195
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(1) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFTRM EXTSTING SERVTCE TERRTTORY BOUNDARIES - I I
J
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
I2
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certift that on tn rffiuy "f þJ:lvl.r, , "u,rr"d to be delivered via
electronic mail only the foregoing Motions to; (1) Strike the City of Burley's Evidentiary
Hearing Brief, (2) Admit the Prefiled Testimony of Michael T. Darrington, (3) Vacate Hearing,
and (4) Affirm Existing Service Tenitory Boundaries of United Electric Co-op, Inc. in IPUC
Docket No. C15-E,-23-01on the following Parties:
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
[e-mail]. qov
ian. noriyuki @,puc. idaho. sov
Chris Burdin, Deputy Attorney General
chris.burdin@.puc. idaho. sov
The City of Burley
Jaxon Munns, Counsel
ziel.com
Brent'Wallin
[e-mail]
I
By
Peter # 3r9s
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(I) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES - I2
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
I
9
l0
il
t2
13
t4
l5
16
l1
t8
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise,ldaho 83702
(208) e38-7e01 (dd)
peter@richardsonadams. com
BEFORE THE IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IJNTTED ELECTRIC
CO.OP INC.'S FORMAL COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATION OF CONTRACT ENTERED
INTO PURSUANT TO THE IDAHO
ELECTRIC STABILIZATION ACT.
Case No.: C15-E-23-01
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S
MOTIONS TO; (1) STRIKE THE CITY oF
BURLEY' S EVTDENTIARY HEARTNG
BzuEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED
TE,STTMONY OF MICHAEL T.
DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE HEARTNG,
AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE
TERRITORY BOUNDARIES
Exhibit A
Affidavit of Michael T. Darrington
EXHIBIT A
UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC.'S MOTIONS TO;(I) STRIKE THE CITY OF BURLEY'S EVIDENTIARY
HEARING BRIEF, (2) ADMIT THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL T. DARRINGTON, (3) VACATE
HEARING, AND (4) AFFIRM EXISTING SERVICE TERRITORY BOUNDARIES