29090.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FALL RIVER RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR APPROVAL TO SERVE A NEW CUSTOMER. )
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-E-02-4

ORDER NO. 29090

Idaho Code § 61-332C provides terms for “determining which electric supplier will provide electric service for a new service entrance.” If more than one electric company has an existing service line within 1320 feet of the new customer, “the electric supplier whose existing service line is nearest the new service entrance shall have the right to serve the customer.” Idaho Code § 61-332C(1)(c). No electric supplier may supply service to a new service entrance in violation of the provisions of the section except as ordered by the Commission. Idaho Code § 61-332C(2).
On June 10, 2002, Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Fall River) filed a letter with the Commission explaining that it had commenced service to a new customer, Tracy Hall, in Rigby, Idaho. Fall River states that the hook-up of Mr. Hall “was accomplished because of a measurement by the Fall River field staff that indicated we have the right under the law to serve Mr. Hall.” Fall River’s measurement to its existing service line for determining service for Mr. Hall apparently was in error. Fall River’s letter further states that “in further measurements and discussions with Utah Power & Light Company [now known as PacifiCorp] it became apparent that the measurement should have been commenced from a different point and [PacifiCorp] would have served Mr. Hall under those conditions.” Fall River asks that its letter be construed “to be a Petition to allow Mr. Hall to remain a Fall River member and that no disruption in service takes place.”
PacifiCorp on July 17, 2002, filed an Answer to the letter petition filed by Fall River. PacifiCorp’s Answer provides greater detail regarding the connection of Mr. Hall to Fall River’s electrical service. PacifiCorp states its understanding “that Fall River measured the distance from the Hall residence to the nearest point of the service drop of another consumer served by Fall River, rather than to the nearest point on Fall River’s distribution facilities from which service could be provided to the Hall residence.” Apparently PacifiCorp has the nearest existing service line to serve Mr. Hall and pursuant to Section 61-332C is the supplier with the right to serve the Hall residence. PacifiCorp nonetheless agrees “that Fall River’s determination regarding its right to serve the Hall residence was an honest mistake.” PacifiCorp’s Answer states that “given the circumstances of this case, including Fall River’s honest mistake in its interpretation of what was the nearest ‘existing service line,’ and the fact that service to the Hall residence has been installed, PacifiCorp does not oppose Fall River’s Petition.” PacifiCorp regards Fall River’s letter to be a petition filed under Idaho Code 61-332C(2) for an order from the Commission allowing the connection for Fall River to provide electrical service to the Hall residence.
The Commission can approve the agreement of Fall River and PacifiCorp as a passive settlement. Commission Rule of Procedure 271 defines a passive settlement as “one in which a party agrees to concur in, accept or not to oppose another parties’ position previously on record with the Commission.” PacifiCorp in its answer stated its agreement with the request for an Order filed by Fall River. Pursuant to Rule 274, “the Commission may summarily accept settlement of an essentially private dispute that has no significant implications for regulatory law or policy or for other utilities or customers.” Both Fall River and PacifiCorp regard the letter filed by Fall River as a Petition under Section 61-332C for an Order approving the service connection by Fall River to Mr. Hall. Staff also contacted Mr. Hall and confirmed that he supports the resolution proposed by the parties, preferring that he remain a customer of Fall River.
The Commission hereby approves the agreement of Fall River and PacifiCorp for Fall River to continue as the electric service provider for Mr. Hall and issues an Order approving the service connection by Fall River to the Hall residence. The Commission finds that it is essentially a private dispute that has no implications for regulatory law or for other utilities or customers.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application filed by Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. is approved. Pursuant to this Order, Fall River shall remain as the electric service provider to the Tracy Hall residence in Rigby, Idaho.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.GNR-E-02-4 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. GNR-E-02-4. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of August 2002.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

bls/O:GNRE0204_ws

ORDER NO. 29090 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 6, 2002