20010504Notice of Oral Argument - Order No 28726.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

KIMBALL PROPERTIES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AND HEWLETT PACKARD
COMPANY,

COMPLAINANTS

vs.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY, AN IDAHO
CORPORATION

RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-00-12

NOTICE OF
ORAL ARGUMENT

ORDER NO. 28726

On August 10, 2000, Complainants, Kimball Properties Limited Partnership (Kimball) and Hewlett Packard Company (Hewlett Packard) filed a Complaint for reparations against Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company).
Complaint
As reflected in the Complaint, Kimball constructed and owns four buildings located on North Sailfish Place, West Golden Trout Street and North Kimball Place in the City of Boise, Idaho, commonly referred to as the Kimball Business Park. Hewlett Packard occupies the four buildings and directly reimbursed Kimball for construction costs including the cost of connecting to Idaho Power’s system. Complainants allege that Idaho Power informed Complainants in early 1999 that it did not have sufficient and reliable distribution/transmission capacity to serve the Kimball Business Park. To provide the requested service, Idaho Power constructed a new 20 MW substation (Bethel Court Substation) near the corner of Maple Grove and Franklin Streets and assessed Kimball approximately 20% of the construction costs, $490,824. Kimball on October 29, 1999 tendered payment under protest.
Complainants contend that the area in the vicinity of the Kimball Business Park is a rapidly growing business and commercial district and that Idaho Power would have had to construct a new substation in that vicinity to meet generic load growth regardless of the construction of the Kimball Business Park. Complainants allege that no other customers have
been required or asked to pay a portion of the Bethel Court Substation. Complainants contend that they have suffered discriminatory treatment at the hands of Idaho Power and request reparations in the amount of $490,824 with interest from October 29, 1999, the date of payment.
Motion to Compel
On April 26, 2001, Complainants filed a Motion to Compel discovery responses. Complainants contend that on March 8, 2001 Complainants served their first set of discovery requests and requests for production on Idaho Power Company. The Company’s responses were served on Complainants on March 22, 2001. In responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Request for Production (RFP) Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, the Company asserted an objection that each request is “overly broad, vague and burdensome and purports to elicit information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In addition, the Company objected to Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 1 pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 225.01.
Complainants contend that the Company’s objection to its discovery requests are unsupportable, self-serving, boilerplate assertions designed to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the costs of litigation, in violation of Rule 26(f)(1)(B), of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (IRCP). Complainants contend that their discovery requests are all reasonably calculated to, directly or indirectly, lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Complainants request that the Commission order the Company to fully respond to all discovery requests pursuant to IRCP Rule 26(f)(2) and order the Company to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by the Complainants due to the Company’s bad faith responses, including Complainants’ reasonable attorney fees.
Idaho Power Company on April 30 filed a response to Complainant’s Motion to Compel requesting that the Commission set the matter for oral argument.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to Rule 254 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the Commission will hear Oral Argument on Complainants’ Motion to Compel. Oral Argument will be held on TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2001 AT 2:00 P.M. AT THE COMMISSION HEARING ROOM, 472 W. WASHINGTON STREET, BOISE, IDAHO.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all proceedings in this matter will be conducted pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.000 et seq.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Title 61 of the Idaho Code.

O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Oral Argument on Complainants’ Motion to Compel will be heard in accordance with the foregoing scheduling.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of May 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

bls/O:ipce0012_sw

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO. 28726 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 4, 2001