20020906Workshop Party Letter.doc

September 6, 2002

To: Parties of Record
Case No. GNR-E-02-2

Dear Interested Party:

Thank you for your participation in this case and during the workshop held in Boise on August 27, 2002. It was helpful that so many responded prior to the workshop to Staff’s questions regarding an appropriate formula. Because the Commission Staff did not circulate its attachment formula prior to the workshop, the parties did not have an opportunity to provide responsive comments after a review period. Idaho Power indicated it would like a comment opportunity, and that seems like a logical next step for this proceeding. Following the filing of additional comments, I plan to propose a schedule for presenting the case to the Commission as efficiently as possible.

In finalizing its proposal, Staff again reviewed the Commission’s decision in Washington Water Power v. Benewah Cable Company, Order No. 19229, and considered the feedback it received during the workshop. Staff made an adjustment to the formula it intends to present to the Commission, specifically regarding the assignment of a portion of the safety space to usable space. The Commission in the Benewah decision, determining that the three feet four inch safety space existed to the benefit of both utilities and attachers, found “it reasonable to assign approximately one half of this separation to usable space.” Order No. 19229 p. 15. Staff in its formula assigned two feet of the safety space to usable space, which is more than one half the safety space. To bring its proposed formula closer to the Benewah calculation, Staff will modify its formula to include one and a half feet of the safety space in the usable space.

The change to Staff’s proposal is reflected in the attachments included in this correspondence. The final result, using Idaho Power’s FERC Form 1 figures, is a pole attachment rate of $7.12, rather than $8.06 as presented during the workshop. Staff believes this adjustment brings its formula closer to what the Commission approved in the Benewah case.

Please provide your written response to Staff’s proposal no later than September 20, 2002. In that response, please also indicate whether you desire an evidentiary hearing, or whether the issues can be presented to the Commission by written briefs and oral argument. If you believe a hearing is necessary, please also identify those issues you believe require a hearing. As I would like to present the case to the Commission by the end of the year, please also let me know of any scheduling problems you may have during that period.

Again, thank you for your efforts in this case.

Sincerely,

Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General

Enclosure