28860.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

in the matter of JAY HULET’S COMPLAINT REGARDING IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S IRRIGATION BUY-BACK PROGRAM. )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. ipc-e-01-25

ORDER NO. 28860
On June 19, 2001, Jay Hulet, an Idaho Power Company irrigation customer, filed a formal complaint with the Commission requesting that it order the Company to accept his farm near Oreana into the Irrigation Buy-Back Program. Mr. Hulet filed his formal complaint after the Commission Staff was unable to resolve his informal complaint against the Company. On July 23, 2001, the Commission ordered Idaho Power to file a response to Mr. Hulet’s Complaint within twenty-one (21) days. Idaho Power filed its response with the Commission on August 14, 2001.
After reviewing the written submissions from this formal complaint and taking into consideration the materials filed in the informal proceeding, the Commission now renders its decision.
BACKGROUND
Idaho Power Company’s Irrigation Buy-Back Program
On February 7, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed an Application seeking permission from the Commission to initiate a program to purchase energy load reductions from its irrigation customers who take service under Schedule 24 during the 2001 growing season. At that time Idaho Power believed that because of projections of below-normal streamflows in the Snake River and its tributaries, coupled with the volatile wholesale energy market in the western United States the Irrigation Buy-Back Program could allow it to cost-effectively reduce its total purchase power expense during 2001. Order No. 28699 at 1-2.
On February 20, 2001, the Commission issued Order No. 28647 authorizing Idaho Power to solicit competitive bids from irrigation customers desiring to participate in the Program. Id. at 1. The Company solicited these bids by mailing a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to irrigation customers taking service under Schedule 24 who could reduce their energy consumption by a minimum of 100,000 kWh during the 2001 growing season. Idaho Power estimated that approximately 1,700 of its customers had historically consumed energy amounts that would qualify them for participation. Application at 3. Idaho Power required irrigation customers to submit their bids to the Company no later than 5:00 p.m. (MST), February 28, 2001.
On March 14, 2001, the Commission issued Interlocutory Order No. 28676 approving the Company’s request to accept bids from its irrigation customers in order to implement the Program. On May 25, 2001, the Commission issued final Order No. 28699 resolving remaining issues, and providing detailed findings for the decisions made in the previous Interlocutory Order.
Informal Proceeding
On May 15, 2001, the Commission Staff received a letter from Mr. Hulet expressing his complaint regarding Idaho Power’s treatment of him in relation to the Irrigation Buy-Back Program. Enclosed with this letter was correspondence between Hulet and the Company. Hulet alleged that Idaho Power representatives provided him with erroneous information regarding his ability to bid his farms into the Program. Specifically, Hulet alleged that he was informed that he could not submit a bid because of his past due balance with the Company. As a result Hulet asserts that he did not submit a bid and thus was prevented from the opportunity to participate in the Program. Hulet also claimed that Idaho Power failed to schedule timely meetings with him to answer his questions, released his customer information to a third-party inappropriately or improperly denied him access to the Program.
In response to Mr. Hulet’s inquiry, Staff sent a letter containing its findings to him. This letter stated that based on the record before it Staff was unable to conclude that: Idaho Power Company had made material misrepresentations to him about the Program and his ability to bid into it; had failed to schedule timely meetings with him to answer his questions; had released his customer information to a third-party inappropriately; or had improperly denied him access to the Program. Staff Letter dated June 1, 2001.
Mr. Hulet responded to Staff’s letter by filing a formal complaint with the Commission.
JAY HULET’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
Mr. Hulet’s Complaint requests that the Commission investigate Idaho Power’s dealings with him regarding its Irrigation Buy-Back Program. Case No. IPC-E-01-3. Mr. Hulet owns two farms in Owyhee County, one near Murphy and one near Oreana. Hulet stated that he rents out all of the acreage of the Murphy farm but has always remained responsible for the power bills for this property. Hulet also stated that for the past two years he has been responsible for the power bills on the Oreana farm.
In his Complaint, Mr. Hulet makes two allegations against Idaho Power. Hulet alleges that Company representatives on several occasions falsely represented to him that he would not be eligible to submit a bid into the Irrigation Buy-Back Program because of his unpaid power bills. As a result of this alleged misinformation on February 28, 2001, Hulet entered into an agreement that leased his Murphy farm to his son, Blaine. This agreement transferred responsibility for the meters on the Murphy farm into Blaine Hulet’s name. This allowed Blaine to bid the Murphy farm into Idaho Power’s Program because he did not have an outstanding balance with the Company. Hulet contends because of these false directives of Idaho Power he did not bid his Oreana farm into the Program and as a result has suffered serious financial harm.
Second, Mr. Hulet contends that Idaho Power provided his detailed account information to his son Blaine without his authorization. Mr. Hulet alleges that Idaho Power has violated its own policies by releasing this type of information without customer authorization. Mr. Hulet claims that without his detailed account information his son would not have been able to submit a viable bid to Idaho Power. Hulet also states that this alleged action by the Company has damaged his reputation and his ability to conduct business.
As relief, Mr. Hulet requests that the Commission order Idaho Power to accept his Oreana farm into the Irrigation Buy-Back Program.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY RESPONSE
Idaho Power filed its response on August 14, 2001. Idaho Power states that Mr. Hulet is the responsible party on a number of accounts associated with irrigation pumping service under its Rate Schedule 24. At the time that Idaho Power began the Irrigation Buy-Back Program (approximately February 16, 2001), it sent Mr. Hulet a Request for Proposal and other documents explaining the procedures and requirements for submitting a bid to participate in the Program. At that time the Company alleges that Hulet was in arrears to them on all of his accounts in the aggregate amount of approximately $526,000.
The Company states that its representatives accurately and properly advised Mr. Hulet about the terms and conditions of the RFP and the Program. Affidavit of Mike Liechty, Exhibit 1. Specifically, Idaho Power denies Hulet’s allegation that its representatives repeatedly informed him that he could not submit a bid into the Program unless his back power bills were paid in full. Rather, the Company asserts that it informed Hulet that it could not accept a bid into the Program until his past due bills were paid in full. The Company states that this condition would not have prevented him from at least submitting a bid.
The Company also denies that it improperly provided his son, Blaine Hulet, with information specific to his past usage for his irrigation accounts. The Company claims that it released Hulet’s account information to his son, but only after it received a signed copy of the lease agreement between Mr. Hulet and Blaine Hulet. Idaho Power contends that any account information in Blaine’s possession prior to the Company receiving the lease agreement was provided to him by Mike Ihli, Jay Hulet’s associate.
Idaho Power argues that granting Mr. Hulet relief on his Complaint would be inconsistent with two material conditions for participation in the Program as approved by the Commission. First, that he was and still is in arrears for irrigation service provided to him by Idaho Power in the amount of approximately $526,000. This would have prevented any bid submitted by him from being accepted because of the outstanding balances. Second, the Company asserts that consistent with Program rules, approved by the Commission, it has uniformly denied participation to irrigation customers who did not submit bids in response to the RFP by 5:00 p.m. on February 28, 2001. Idaho Power cites Commission Order No. 28699 as an example where it denied the Petitions of four irrigation customers asking to be allowed to participate in the Program despite not having submitted a timely bid. Accordingly, the Company asserts that Mr. Hulet’s request should be denied and his Complaint dismissed.

COMMISSION DECISION
Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 61-501 and 61-612 the Commission has jurisdiction to resolve the Complaint brought against Idaho Power by Mr. Hulet. This Complaint arises from the Company’s Irrigation Buy-Back Program reviewed and approved by the Commission. As this Program has proceeded through the 2001 growing season the Commission has resolved several complaints and issues that have arisen from it. Thus, it must resolve the instant Complaint.
The Commission finds that a hearing is not required to consider the issues presented in Mr. Hulet’s Complaint. Therefore, the Commission issues its decision on this case based on the written record submitted including the materials submitted prior to this matter becoming a formal complaint. See IDAPA 31.01.01.201.
In its Application Idaho Power stated that it intended to make this Program available to those irrigation customers taking service under Schedule 24 who committed to reducing their electric consumption by a minimum of 100,000 kWh during the 2001 growing season. Application at 3. The Company estimated that approximately 1,700 customers historically consumed energy amounts that would qualify them for participation. Mr. Hulet’s farms were included among this number as it is undisputed that he received the RFP soliciting a bid from him on February 17, 2001. Complaint at 1. The RFP as approved by Commission Order No. 28699 on May 25, 2001 required that all bids be submitted to Idaho Power no later than 5:00 p.m. (MST) Wednesday, February 28, 2001. RFP at 3-4, § 2.4. The record before the Commission clearly demonstrates Mr. Hulet failed to submit a timely bid into Idaho Power’s Irrigation Buy-Back Program. Mr. Hulet contends that he did not submit a bid because the Company provided him with false information.
Several facts are undisputed. Mr. Hulet received the RFP information and knew that February 28, 2001 was the cutoff date for bids to be submitted to Idaho Power. Hulet did not submit a bid. The Commission has consistently denied previous requests to submit late bids or be retroactively included into this Program finding that to do so would violate the anti-discrimination provisions of Idaho Code § 61-315. See Order No. 28699 at 20. The Commission also found that the various individual circumstances presented in these previous requests for participation without submitting a bid or with a late bid did not justify the Commission requiring Idaho Power to accept their bids. Id. The Commission must decide Mr. Hulet’s Complaint similarly. To find for Mr. Hulet would violate the anti-discrimination provisions of Idaho Code § 61-315. The Program required a bid submitted on or before February 28, 2001 at 5 p.m. MST. This requirement will not be waived regardless of any misunderstandings or misinformation that may have existed. To do so would be to grant Mr. Hulet treatment that has previously been denied to others similarly situated.
With regard to the second complaint about the release of information, there clearly is a dispute regarding when and by whom Mr. Hulet’s account information was released to a third party. Hulet asserts that it was done prior to his entering into a lease agreement with his son. Idaho Power replies that any account information of Hulet’s in the hands of third parties prior to the lease agreement being signed was provided by a party not associated with or employed by Idaho Power.
The Commission is without any statutory authority to award damages. Accordingly, to the extent that Mr. Hulet has suffered any damage if it is proven that Idaho Power did release his account information, we are without the means to compensate him. Accordingly, this Complaint is dismissed.
O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jay Hulet’s Complaint against Idaho Power Company is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-01-25 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. IPC-E-01-25. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61626.

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of September 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE0125_jh2
This correspondence includes Mr. Hulet’s letter to Ric Gale, V.P of Pricing and Regulatory Services, dated March 22, 2001; letter sent by Maggie Brilz of Idaho Power to Mr. Hulet in response, dated April 13, 2001; Mr. Hulet’s follow-up letter, dated April 13, 2001; Mr. Hulet’s second follow-up letter sent to the Company, dated April 23, 2001; and, letter sent by John R. Gale of Idaho Power to Mr. Hulet, dated May 4, 2001.
Idaho Code § 61-612 states in pertinent part:
Complaint may be made by the commission of its own motion or by any corporation or person, . . . by petition or complaint in writing, setting forth any act or thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility including any rule, regulation or charge heretofore established or fixed by or for any public utility, in violation, or claimed to be in violation of any provision of law or of any order or rule of the commission[.]

Hulet has in fact never submitted a bid.

ORDER NO. 28860 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 28, 2001