20230814Comments_2.pdf

The following comment was submited via PUCWeb:

Name: Bear Prairie
Submission Time: Aug 11 2023 5:30PM
Email: [e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Address: 140 S. Capital
Idaho Falls, ID 83405

Name of U�lity Company: Idaho Falls Power

Case ID: C15-E-23-01

Comment: "I am also going to email my comment in which is in a PDF and on our leterhead which is
easier to read.

August 11, 2023

IDAHO FALLS POWER’S (IFP’s) COMMENTS
FOR SUBMISSION TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RE: UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC. V. CITY OF BURLEY IPUC DOCKET NO. C15-E-23-01

The Commission has invited “all affected u�li�es” to provide comments suppor�ng or opposing the City
of Burley’s Pe��on for Declaratory Judgment that its exis�ng service territory agreement with United
Electric Co-op, Inc. should be terminated, in part, because:
ci�zens [should] … not be forced into using one service provider over another based on an agreement 37
years ago.
Burley appears to make other technical legal arguments regarding why its service territory agreement
with United Electric should be terminated based on their interpreta�on of Idaho contract law. IFP limits
its comments to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of exclusive electric u�lity
service territories.
IFP recognizes that Idaho u�li�es operate in exclusive electric u�lity service territories that require
ci�zens to use one service provider over another. Idaho has never embraced open compe��on for its
electric u�li�es. In fact, the Idaho legislature has explicitly rejected the en�re concept of allowing
ci�zens to arbitrarily select their electric supplier. That is why it adopted the Electric Supplier
Stabiliza�on Act (ESSA), which prevents retail compe��on for electric customers. It has been the law in
Idaho for many decades.
The express purpose of the ESSA is to promote harmony among and between electric suppliers; prohibit
“pira�ng” of consumers of another electric supplier; discourage duplica�on of electrical facili�es;
ac�vely supervise certain conduct of electric suppliers; and stabilize the territories and consumers
served with electricity.
IFP has benefited for many years from its Service Alloca�on Agreement (Oct. 9, 2017) with PacifiCorp,
dba Rocky Mountain Power. The Service Alloca�on Agreement has resolved many func�onal and
economic challenges related to City growth and the annexa�on of property into the City within the
incumbent provider’s service territory and has provided predictable, cost effec�ve, and fair transfer of
customers and assets between the par�es. Voiding service territory agreements (or laws) will have the
effect of increases in costs, uncertainty, duplica�ve service lines, pira�ng, and makes long-range u�lity
planning difficult.
To upset the capabili�es of incumbent providers to rely on their ability to contractually agree to asset
and customer transfer upsets legal, historical, regula�ve, and contractual precedents to the detriment of
the consumers of both the incumbent provider and the City.
In IFP’s experience, when the agreements between IFP and RMP needed to be adjusted, the par�es did
so contractually a�er a series of candid, professional mee�ngs and exchanges, which resulted in the
current Agreement consistent with ESSA. This adjustment did not require a breach of long-standing
contractual agreements. IFP does not believe that breach of contract or PUC extension of authority is
necessary for adjustments to be made to a service alloca�on agreement.
IFP believes the Commission has the requisite authority to ensure, for incumbent providers over which it
has jurisdic�on, that exis�ng service territory boundary agreements are enforced and enforceable.
In Sum, IFP, urges the Commission to enforce and uphold the clear State policy of protec�ng the integrity
of electric u�lity service territories within its authority – including duly executed and Commission-
approved agreements between u�li�es that establish such territories.
"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
P | 208.612.8430 F | 208.612.8435

______________________________________________
P.O. Box 50220 | 140 S. Capital Avenue | Idaho Falls, Idaho 83405-0220
IDAHO FALLS POWER
August 11, 2023
IDAHO FALLS POWER’S (IFP’s) COMMENTS
FOR SUBMISSION TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
RE: UNITED ELECTRIC CO-OP, INC. V. CITY OF BURLEY
IPUC DOCKET NO. C15-E-23-01

The Commission has invited “all affected utilities” to provide comments supporting or
opposing the City of Burley’s Petition for Declaratory Judgment that its existing service
territory agreement with United Electric Co-op, Inc. should be terminated, in part, because:
citizens [should] … not be forced into using one service provider over another based
on an agreement 37 years ago.1
Burley appears to make other technical legal arguments regarding why its service territory
agreement with United Electric should be terminated based on their interpretation of Idaho
contract law. IFP limits its comments to emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity
of exclusive electric utility service territories.
IFP recognizes that Idaho utilities operate in exclusive electric utility service territories that
require citizens to use one service provider over another. Idaho has never embraced open
competition for its electric utilities. In fact, the Idaho legislature has explicitly rejected the
entire concept of allowing citizens to arbitrarily select their electric supplier. That is why it
adopted the Electric Supplier Stabilization Act (ESSA), which prevents retail competition for
electric customers. It has been the law in Idaho for many decades.
The express purpose of the ESSA is to promote harmony among and between electric
suppliers; prohibit “pirating” of consumers of another electric supplier; discourage duplication
of electrical facilities; actively supervise certain conduct of electric suppliers; and stabilize the
territories and consumers served with electricity.
IFP has benefitted for many years from its Service Allocation Agreement (Oct. 9, 2017) with
PacifiCorp, dba Rocky Mountain Power. The Service Allocation Agreement has resolved
many functional and economic challenges related to City growth and the annexation of
property into the City within the incumbent provider’s service territory and has provided
predictable, cost effective, and fair transfer of customers and assets between the parties.
1 Docket No. C15-E-23-01, Order No. 35885 at pp. 2 – 3.
RECEIVED
2023 AUGUST 11, 2023 5:32PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION

______________________________________________
P.O. Box 50220 | 140 S. Capital Avenue | Idaho Falls, Idaho 83405-0220
Voiding service territory agreements (or laws) will have the effect of increases in costs,
uncertainty, duplicative service lines, pirating, and makes long-range utility planning difficult.
To upset the capabilities of incumbent providers to rely on their ability to contractually agree
to asset and customer transfer upsets legal, historical, regulative, and contractual precedents to
the detriment of the consumers of both the incumbent provider and the City.
In IFP’s experience, when the agreements between IFP and RMP needed to be adjusted, the
parties did so contractually after a series of candid, professional meetings and exchanges,
which resulted in the current Agreement consistent with ESSA. This adjustment did not
require a breach of long-standing contractual agreements. IFP does not believe that breach of
contract or PUC extension of authority is necessary for adjustments to be made to a service
allocation agreement.
IFP believes the Commission has the requisite authority to ensure, for incumbent providers
over which it has jurisdiction, that existing service territory boundary agreements are enforced
and enforceable.
In Sum, IFP, urges the Commission to enforce and uphold the clear State policy of protecting the integrity of electric utility service territories within its authority – including duly executed and Commission-approved agreements between utilities that establish such territories.

Bear Prairie General Manager

cc. Randy Fife / IFP General Counsel Stephen Boorman / IFP Assistant GM File / BP597