20010710Decision Memo.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
BILL EASTLAKE
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
TONYA CLARK
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
KEITH HESSING
BEV BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE

FROM: JOHN R. HAMMOND

DATE: JULY 10, 2001

RE: IDAHO POWER COMPANY IRRIGATION CUSTOMER JAY HULET’S COMPLAINT REGARDING THE COMPANY’S IRRIGATION BUYBACK PROGRAM IN CASE NO. IPC-E-01-3.

On June 8, 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.
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2001, the Commission Staff received a letter from Mr. Hulet, requesting that it 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.
Mr. Hulet has two grievances with Idaho Power Company. Briefly, Hulet complained that Company representatives falsely told 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 and over his objections Hulet entered into an agreement with his son, Blaine to bid the Murphy farm into the Program. This agreement allegedly transferred responsibility on the meters for the Murphy farm into Blaine Hulet’s name. Hulet contends that under this arrangement he is receiving less in payments from Idaho Power than if he had bid this farm into the Program himself. Furthermore, Hulet contends that because of these misrepresentations he also did not bid the Oreana farm into Idaho Power’s Program.
Second, Mr. Hulet contends that Idaho Power provided his detailed account information to his son Blaine without his authorization and prior to entering the agreement with him on February 28, 2001. 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.
Idaho Power Company Response
On April 13, 2001, Idaho Power sent a response to Mr. Hulet regarding his grievances. In the Company response, Maggie Brilz, Director of Pricing at Idaho Power Company, explained that customers who had outstanding balances with the Company were not prohibited from submitting bids for the Irrigation Buy-Back Program. However, a bid from a customer with such a balance would not be accepted until it was paid off. Furthermore, Brilz stated that Idaho Power would not accept his bid now to enter his Oreana farm into the Program stating that the Company has consistently refused to accept offers from customers who did not submit bids by February 28, 2001. Idaho Power’s response though did not address Hulet’s second grievance, the alleged improper dissemination of his account information.
Staff Response and Decision
The Commission Staff treated Mr. Hulet’s complaint as an informal proceeding pursuant to Commission Rules of Procedure 21-26 and sent Mr. Hulet a letter on June 1, 2001 that represented its findings. Staff was unable to resolve Mr. Hulet’s informal Complaint to his satisfaction. Accordingly, Hulet has filed his formal complaint reiterating his two grievances. As relief, Mr. Hulet requests that his Oreana farm be entered into Idaho Power Irrigation Buy-Back Program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission serve a copy of Mr. Hulet’s Complaint upon Idaho Power and require the Company to submit a letter response within twenty-one (21) days. Staff further recommends that after the Company files its letter response the Commission allow Mr. Hulet an opportunity to respond in writing to the Company’s letter response. After these filings have been made Staff recommends that the Commission decide this matter on the written record.
Commission Decision:
Does the Commission wish to treat Mr. Hulet’s Complaint as one filed pursuant to Commission Rule 54?
Does the Commission wish to require Idaho Power Company to respond by letter to the allegations contained in Mr. Hulet’s Complaint? If so, does the Commission wish to also allow Mr. Hulet the opportunity to file a written response to Idaho Power’s letter response?

John R. Hammond

Staff: Keith Hessing

M:HuletComplaint_jh
Mr. Hulet contends that the Murphy farm is approximately 4500 acres and the Oreana farm is approximately 2500 acres.

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3