20160502_4965.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF

FROM: DAPHNE HUANG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: APRIL 29, 2016

SUBJECT: MATTER IN PROGRESS: IDAHO POWER’S APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER TITLE OF MOBILE MANOR MOBILE
HOME PARK METER PEDESTALS, CASE NO. IPC-E-16-07
On April 12, 2016, Idaho Power Company asked the Commission to approve its
transfer of 18 meter pedestals in the Mobile Manor mobile home park to Mobile Manor, pursuant
to Idaho Code § 61-328 and Rule 52. On April 14, the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
(ICIP) filed a Petition to Intervene in the case under Rule 71, which Idaho Power timely opposed
per Rule 75. The Commission considered the Petition and granted ICIP intervention. Order No.
33512. The parties conferred about how to process the matter and agreed about some, but not all
aspects of a schedule under Modified Procedure.
BACKGROUND
Before March 31, 1981, Idaho Power installed, owned, and maintained mobile home
pedestals1 as part of facilities for electric service to most mobile homes. Application at 1. After
March 31, 1981, new mobile homes have been served by pedestals owned and maintained by
customers per Idaho Power’s Rule H, Section (2)(g). Id. at 2. Any pedestals still owned by
Idaho Power predate 1981 and their replacement parts are no longer manufactured, but must be
made by Idaho Power. Id. To avoid the expense of maintaining and repairing these pedestals,
“and to promote consistency of ownership among customers, Idaho Power seeks to transfer title
of Company-owned pedestals to the customer whenever possible.” Id.

1 Pedestals are comparable to meter bases attached to buildings, but are customer-owned. Application at 2.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
THE AGREEMENT
Idaho Power entered into a Transfer of Title Agreement,2 to transfer, convey and
assign 18 meter pedestals occupying mobile home spaces in Mobile Manor mobile home park in
Bannock County, Idaho. Agreement at 1-2. The Agreement provides that Idaho Power will
update the pedestals if and when the Commission approves the Agreement, but that the Company
“does not warrant the upgrades or the Pedestals to any degree.” Id. at 3. Rather, Mobile Manor
agrees to accept the pedestals “AS IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS.” Id. (capitalization original).
Idaho Power does not “warrant the upgrades or the pedestals to any degree.” Application at 2.
“No money was or will be exchanged as a result of the transaction.” Application at 3.
THE APPLICATION
Idaho Power’s Application seeks approval of its proposed Transfer of Title
Agreement with Mobile Manor. The Commission has authority to approve or reject the
proposed Agreement under Idaho Code § 61-328. That provision’s requirements include that the
Company show the proposed transaction is consistent with the public interest, and that the cost
and rates for supplying service will not be increased because of the transaction. Idaho Code §
61-328(3). Application at 2-3.
Idaho Power asserts that it satisfies all the statutory requirements. Id. The Company
contends the transaction is “consistent with the public interest because it allows Idaho Power to
treat similarly-situated customers in a like manner” by ensuring Mobile Manor’s mobile home
owners own their pedestals just as other mobile home owners who established service after 1981.
Id. at 3. Also, “The up-front costs of updating the pedestals will be more than offset by the
elimination of long-term maintenance and repair costs of continued utility ownership.” Id.
“Over time, because the transaction reduces Idaho Power’s costs of maintenance, the Company’s
expenses will decrease in the long term.” Id.
PARTIES’ RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT PROCESS
The parties conferred about how to process the matter and agreed that a comment
deadline of June 6, 2016, under Modified Procedure, would be appropriate. The parties also
agreed to a deadline of June 17, 2016, for Idaho Power to reply, if necessary. The parties did not
reach clear consensus on two remaining issues.

2 Idaho Power has submitted a copy of the Agreement as an attachment to its Application.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3
1. ICIP Response to Staff Comments. ICIP indicated it would like to “reserve the
opportunity to reply” to Staff comments at the same time as Idaho Power. ICIP requested that “a
reply comment opportunity be equally available to all parties who believe reply comments would
be helpful to the Commission in its deliberations.”
Because Idaho Power has the burden of proof, the Company stated that it would like a
week to file any response to ICIP’s response.
Staff does not oppose ICIP responding to Staff comments. However, Staff observes
that the Commission’s rules concerning Modified Procedure do not contemplate a response to
Staff comments other than the Applicant’s reply. Staff therefore recommends that deadlines for
such responses not be incorporated into a Notice of Modified Procedure at the outset of this or
future cases. Staff proposes that, if ICIP wishes to respond to Staff’s comments, ICIP should
request such opportunity at that time. Staff agrees that Idaho Power has the burden of proof and
should therefore have the opportunity to respond to ICIP’s response, if the Commission grants
ICIP’s request.
2. Public Hearing. In its Application, Idaho Power noted Idaho Code § 61-328(2)
provides that the Commission “shall conduct a public hearing on the application.” Idaho Power
believes that a hearing is not necessary to consider the transaction here. Application at 4.
However, the Company stated that if “the Commission determines that a technical hearing is
required, the Company stands ready to present testimony and support the Application in such
hearing.” Id. at 4.
Staff agrees that Modified Procedure is sufficient to adequately create a record on
which the Commission can decide the Application. Staff believes a public hearing is not
necessary to decide the issues before the Commission, and that it would be appropriate to give
notice that a public technical hearing will be conducted upon any request made on or before the
date of Idaho Power’s final filing. In the event no such request is made, a public hearing could
be waived in the interest of “judicial economy” – in other words, to save unneeded and wasteful
expense.
ICIP’s position was that it “defer[s] to the Commission’s reading of the statute as to
whether a hearing is needed.” ICIP added that it, “defer[s] to the Commission on the question of
the necessity for a hearing only to the extent the Commission complies with all of the statutory
requirements for electric utility asset transfers.”
DECISION MEMORANDUM 4
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission wish to issue a Notice of Application and Notice of
Modified Procedure with a deadline of June 6, 2016 for comments, and a deadline of June 17 for
the Company’s reply, if any?
2. Regarding a response by ICIP to Staff comments, does the Commission wish to:
a. set a deadline of June 17, 2016, for ICIP to respond to Staff comments, and
June 24 for Idaho Power’s response thereto? or
b. indicate that, if ICIP believes it necessary to respond to Staff comments, ICIP
may file a motion to do so after Staff’s comments are filed?
3. Regarding a public hearing, does the Commission wish to:
a. set a deadline of June 17, 2016 (or the date of Idaho Power’s last filing) for
requests for a public technical hearing, and indicate that such hearing is otherwise waived in the
interest of avoiding unnecessary, wasteful expense? or
b. set a hearing?

M:IPC-E-16-07_djh2