20040315Notice of Complaint Order No 29444.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 15 2004
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
Complainant,
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND
NOTICE OF PREHEARING
CONFERENCE
CASE NO. IPC-O4-
CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO,
Respondent.ORDER NO. 29444
On February 11 , 2004, Idaho Power Company filed a complaint against the City of
Eagle. In its complaint, the Company requests the Commission issue an Order directing the
utility to construct a new 138-kV transmission line from the Eagle substation to a new substation
in Star along one of two transmission corridors through Eagle. Alternatively, if the City insists
that the transmission line be located on another alternative route or buried underground, the
Company requests permission to collect a surcharge from customers located within the corporate
boundaries of Eagle. The surcharge would recover the additional incremental costs associated
with either underground construction or using an alternative route. The Company claims that
the new transmission line is not available by May 2005, there is a material "risk of service
degradation in the Star-Eagle area" next summer.
THE COMPLAINT
A. Background
The complaint outlines the events leading up to its filing. Briefly, in December 2000
Idaho Power filed an application to obtain a conditional use permit from the City of Eagle so that
the Company could erect the taller poles for the new 138-kV transmission line. More
specifically, the Company identified a need to construct a new single pole, single circuit 138-
transmission line from its existing Eagle substation to a new substation to be constructed near
Star, Idaho, between Plummer Lane and Highway 16. The new Star substation is located
approximately 625 feet north of State Highway 44 (State Street). Complaint at ~ 1.
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444
In its permit application, the Company proposed to follow the existing transmission
corridor and replace its existing 69-kV transmission line with the larger transmission line. To
mitigate the need for taller poles, Idaho Power offered to reconstruct a number of smaller
distribution lines in and around the downtown area. Specifically, the Company proposes to
bury the overhead distribution lines along the alley located south of State
Street between (the) Eagle Substation and Eagle Road and eliminate the
overhead distribution lines crossing State Street at Second Street and at Eagle
Road. By burying the( se) distribution lines, the (height of the poles necessary
to carry the new transmission line) could be reduced by several feet.
Id. at ~ 3. At the suggestion of the City, Idaho Power withdrew this application and agreed to
form a citizens advisory committee to obtain additional public input regarding a preferred route
for the new transmission line through the City.
After holding a series of meetings with the citizens committee and obtaining public
input, the Company evaluated 16 different transmission routes. The citizens committee
preferred solution to the transmission corridor dilemma was to recommend that the line be
constructed underground. However, to construct a large capacity transmission line underground
adds significant costs to the project "in the range of $5-$6 million, and that by necessity the
additional cost would have to be borne by the residents of the City.Id. at ~ 6.
The citizens committee s preferred route was to build the new line from the
intersection of State Street and Edgewood south to the Eagle bypass (State Highway 44). The
line would then follow the bypass in a westerly direction until it reconnects with State Street at
approximately Ballantyne Road. From there the line would follow the existing transmission
corridor to the new Star substation. This recommended route, identified as Alternative No.1 (the
Eagle bypass route), was the route proposed in the Company s next permit application to the City
in September 2002. Id. at ~ 7.
During this second permit application, the City funded a study by an independent
engineering firm to evaluate the costs of constructing the line underground. The results of the
study were presented to the City Council in July 2003. In its study, the engineering firm advised
the City that constructing the new transmission line underground for a distance of 1.6 miles
would cost approximately $9.5 million, or $9 million more than the overhead alternative. Id. at ~
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444
In September 2003 , the City s Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that
the Company s application to construct the line along the Eagle bypass be denied allegedly
because it would "be unsightly and would have an adverse effect on the commercial
development taking place" along the Eagle bypass. Id. at ~ 9. When this matter was taken up by
the City Council on October 28 , 2003, the Council remanded the application back to the planning
Staff. Id.
B. Needfor the New Line
Idaho Power maintains that its present facilities are particularly vulnerable to service
degradation because the facilities serving that area are severely strained. To adequately serve
growth in the Eagle-Star-Meridian areas of Ada County, the Company states it must construct
several new transmission facilities, including the line that is the subject of this complaint. The
Company s current analyses indicate that unless the 138-kV line is constructed and available for
service by May 2005 , the risk of service degradation in the Star-Eagle area in the summer of
2005 is material. Final design, materials procurement and construction of a 138-kV line
depending on the route can require a year or more to complete. Id. at ~~ 1 , 15 22.
C. The Alternative Routes
In its complaint, the Company asks the Commission to issue an Order directing the
utility to construct the new transmission line on one of six transmission routes. The first three
alternatives shown on Complaint Exhibit 2 would involve no additional cost to the City. For the
remaining three alternatives (4, 5 , and 6), Idaho Power requests that the City contribute to the
additional costs associated with these routes and configurations.
The six proposed routes are set out below.
Proposed Route
1. Eagle By-pass
Description
Citizens Panel's preferred route
along by-pass (Hwy 44)
Cost to the City
2. Existing 69-kV line
3. Existing 69-kV line with
underground distribution
Along State Street
Along existing State Street route
with distribution lines under-
ground to Jackson Square
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444
4. Existing 69-kV line with
distribution underground
Along existing State Street route
with distribution underground
from substation to Ballantyne
Road
$1.956 million
5. Hwy 55-Floating Feather North along Hwy 55 , then west
along Floating Feather; south on
Linder Road
$1.512 million
6. Hwy 55-Beacon Light North along Hwy 55; west along
Beacon Light; south on Linder
Road
$2.842 million
Exhibit Nos. 1-
Idaho Power maintains that it is unfair for its other customers to absorb the higher
costs associated with re-routing or burying the line based upon "the City s dissatisfaction with
the aesthetics of overhead transmission facility located within existing transmission corridors
through the City. Such increased cost would ultimately result in the Company s other customers
paying rates that are unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory and preferential." Complaint at ~ 14.
Idaho Power is requesting that the Commission exercise its statutory authority to prevent such a
result.
If the Company is directed to construct its transmission line along one of the more
costly alternatives (Nos. 4-6) or underground, the Company requests authority to file tariffs to
impose a surcharge upon Eagle City customers. Id. See ~ 23. If the City desires to pursue
underground construction, the additional incremental cost would be not less than $5-6 million
and could be as much as $9 million. The additional costs related to alternate routing or
underground construction, plus interest, should be amortized over a period not to exceed
years. Id.
D. Legal Issues
Idaho Power asserts that the Commission has authority to address this matter. More
specifically, the Company maintains that Idaho Code 9 61-508 authorizes the Commission to
order the Company to construct the necessary facilities. In particular, this section provides that:
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444
Whenever the commission
, . . .
upon complaint shall find that additions
extensions, repairs or improvements to or changes in the existing plant
scales, equipment, apparatus, facilities or other physical property of any
public utility. . . ought reasonably to be made, or that a new structure or
structures should be erected, to promote the security or convenience of its
employees or the public, or in any other way to secure adequate service
facilities, the commission shall make and serve an order directing such
additions, extensions, repairs, improvements, or changes be made or such
structure or structures be erected in the manner and within the time specified
in said order.
Idaho Code 9 61-508 (emphasis added). In the addition to the preceding section, Idaho Power
also relies on another statute found in the Local Land Use Planning Act Idaho Code 99 67-6501
et seq. In particular Idaho Code 9 67-6528 provides in pertinent part that
if a public utility has been ordered or permitted by specific order. . . to do or
refrain from doing an act by the public utilities commission any action or
order of a governmental agency pursuant to Titles 31 , 50 or 67, Idaho Code
in conflict with said public utilities commission order. shall insofar as it is in
conflict, (be J null and void if prior to entering said order, the public utilities
commission has given the affected governmental agency an opportunity to
appear before or consult with the public utilities commission with respect to
such conflict.
Idaho Code 9 67-6528 (emphasis added).
Given its desire to place the subject transmission line in service no later than May
2005, Idaho Power requests that the Commission consider this matter on an expedited basis. The
Company suggests that the Commission convene a prehearing conference at its earliest
convenience to discuss the processing of this matter.
D ISCUSSI 0 N
This matter was brought before the Commission at its public meeting on February 23
2004. At that time, Staff recommended that rather than issuing a summons requiring the City to
file an answer to the complaint, that it would be more appropriate to process this matter as a
petition or an investigation. IDAPA 31.01.01.053
, .
054 and .057. The Staff also recommended
that the Commission schedule a prehearing conference so that the parties may discuss how this
case of first impression should be processed.
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444
NOTICE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE
Based upon our review of the complaint and Staff s recommendations, we find it is
unnecessary to require the City to file an answer to the complaint. Given the unusual nature of
this case, we further find that it is appropriate to schedule a prehearing conference in this matter
for the parties to discuss and recommend to the Commission how this matter may be processed.
Because of the previously scheduled hearings and other demands on the Commission s time, we
shall direct the parties to conduct a prehearing conference without the Commission s presence.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Commission has scheduled a prehearing
conference to convene at M., MARCH 31, 2004, IN THE UTILITY CONFERENCE
ROOM, 472 W. WASHINGTON STREET, BOISE, IDAHO 83702 (334-0330)Thepurpose
of the prehearing conference will be for the parties to discuss how this matter should be
processed and to discuss the discovery, testimony, and hearing schedule.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings and prehearing conferences in
this matter will be held in facilities meeting the accessibility requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Persons needing the help of a sign language interpreter or other
assistance in order to participate in or to understand testimony and argument at a public hearing
may ask the Commission to provide a sign language interpreter or other assistance at the hearing.
The request for assistance must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing by
contacting the Commission Secretary at:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (FAX)
Mail: secretary~puc.state.id.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the complaint and its exhibits have been filed
and are available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Commission offices.
The complaint and exhibits are also available on the Commission s web site at
www.puc.state.id.under the "File Room" icon.
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings will be conducted pursuant to
the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. IDAPA 31.01.01.000
et seq.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Title 61 and specifically Idaho Code 99 61-503, 61-508, and 67-6528.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the City of Eagle shall be excused from filing an
answer to the complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties appear at the prehearing conference on
March 31 , 2004 at 3 p.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 15'" f"k
day of March 2004.
L1~
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~/~
Commission Secretary
vldlO:IPCE0404 dh
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
OF PREHEARING CONFERENCEORDER NO. 29444