20081030Lowry Direct.pdf

RECEIVED
2038 OCT 30 PM i.: 34
IDAHO PU~,t~\I~ . . a.'
UTILITIES COMMI~SIOI'i
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ITS RULE H
TARIFF RELATED TO NEW SERVICE
ATTACHMENTS AND DISTRIBUTION LINE
INSTALLATIONS OR ALTERATIONS
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-22
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF
DAVID R. LOWRY
1 Q.Please state your name and business address.
2 A.My name is David R. Lowry and my business
3 address is 1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho.
4 Q.By whom are you employed and in what
5 capacity?
6 A.I am employed by Idaho Power Company as the
7 Proj ect Manager of Highway Relocations.
8 Q.Please describe your educational background.
9 A.In May of 1977, I received my Business
10 Associates Degree in Business Management from Boise State
11 University.
12 Q.Please describe your work experience with
13 Idaho Power Company.
14 A.I became employed by Idaho Power Company in
15 1984 in the Delivery Business Unit as a lineman.
16 In 1997, I was offered and accepted a position as a
17 Facility Representative at the Boise Operations Center. My
18 primary function was to manage requests for new line
19 installations in accordance with Rule H, the Company's line
20 installation tariff.
21 In 2000, I was offered and accepted a position in
22 the Transmission & Distribution Design Group and given the
23 responsibility of overseeing highway relocations. My prior
24 experience with applying Rule H played an important role in
LOWRY, DI 1
Idaho Power Company
1 this transition.
2 In 2008, I was promoted to Project Manager of
3 Highway Relocations.
4 Q.What is the purpose of your testimony in
5 this proceeding?
6 A.I was asked by Mr. Gregory Said to describe
7 instances where I have observed state and local
8 governmental entities requiring Idaho Power to pay the
9 costs of relocating its electrical distribution facilities
10 located on public rights-of-way when those relocation costs
11 should have more appropriately been borne by real estate
12 developers.
13 Q.When the Company's distribution facilities
14 must be relocated to accommodate changes in public
15 roadways, how are the costs of those relocations generally
16 assigned?
17 A.Responsibility for facility relocation costs
18 is generally assigned according to the entity making the
19 request for the relocation. Such requests generally come
20 from three main sources. First, Idaho Power often receives
21 requests from governmental agencies to relocate
22 distribution facilities to accommodate new road
23 construction or maintenance of the present roadways. These
24 requests may originate from the Idaho Department of
LOWRY, DI 2
Idaho Power Company
1 Transportation ("lTD"), a local highway district, county,
2 or city ("Public Road Agency"). If a relocation of
3 facilities is required due to an identified and budgeted
4 highway proj ect, Idaho Power is legally required to fund
5 the relocation cost.
6 Second, the Company often receives requests from
7 real estate developers, owners of land adj acent to public
8 roads, or other entities that are not a Public Road Agency
9 ("third parties"). These third-party requests seek a
10 utility relocation in conjunction with the third party's
11 request for road improvements not funded by a Public Road
12 Agency. The Company's Rule H states that these requesting
13 third parties will be charged for the cost of relocation.
14 If the roadway work is not an identified and budgeted
15 proj ect of the Public Road Agency, then the requesting
16 third party pays Idaho Power to relocate its facilities.
17 However, the current Rule H tariff does not clearly address
18 cost responsibility for all relocation situations,
19 including relocations requested by a Public Road Agency on
20 behalf of a third party.
21 Third, when a Public Road Agency collects a portion
22 of the cost of roadway work from a third party, a
23 determination of the respective percentages of
24 participation borne by the Public Road Agency and the third
LOWRY, DI 3
Idaho Power Company
1 party is determined. Idaho Power bears the percentage of
2 the utility relocation cost commensurate with the
3 percentage of the Public Road Agency's funding and the
4 third party pays the remaining percentage of the line
5 relocation cost.
6 Q.How does the Company currently process
7 relocation requests from government agencies?
8 A.When a request is received from a Public
9 Road Agency for relocation of a line in a road right-of-
10 way, the Company makes a good faith effort to determine the
11 primary reason for the relocation. Idaho Power requests a
12 letter from the Public Road Agency stating that the
13 relocation is for public benefit and the primary reason for
14 the relocation is not for a third party. If the Public
15 Road Agency responds in the affirmative, the Company knows
16 it will bear the total cost of the relocation. If the
17 Public Road Agency does not respond affirmatively, further
18 inquiry is required.
19 If the Public Road Agency plans on making
20 improvements for the general public benefit within three
21 years from the day the improvements begin, or from their
22 budgeted period, Idaho Power will fund the cost of such
23 relocation. Exceptions to this occur when Idaho Power has
24 prior rights of occupancy.
LOWRY, DI 4
Idaho Power Company
1 Q.Please explain how prior rights of occupancy
2 affect responsibility for relocation costs?
3 A.The Public Road Agency requesting the
4 relocation may be responsible for the costs of the
5 relocation if:
6 1.Idaho Power has a prior private
7 easement i or
8 2.Idaho Power can claim prescriptive
9 rights for facilities installed previously on private
10 property. If a line has been relocated once at highway
11 agency expense, future moves at that location will be at
12 the agency's expense.
13 Q.Have you observed problems wi th some
14 developers trying to avoid paying their share of relocation
15 costs?
16 A.Yes. In some cases, developers have asked a
17 city to make a relocation request to Idaho Power on their
18 behalf and the city has not disclosed that the developer is
19 involved. The discovery of the third-party developer
20 beneficiary usually is made when the development plans are
21 approved and released by the Public Road Agency.
22 Q.Please describe a specific instance where a
23 local developer has shifted the costs of facility
24 relocation to Idaho Power with the assistance of a
LOWRY, DI 5
Idaho Power Company
1 government entity.
2 A.The developers of the Gateway Mall in Nampa
3 submitted plans to have the intersection of Happy Valley
4 Road and Stamm Lane rebuilt as a new entrance into the
5 Mall. The proj ect was then postponed for a year. Idaho
6 Power, at the developer's request, refunded the collected
7 relocation cost for the proj ect to the developer. Shortly
8 thereafter, a request for relocation was received from the
9 Ci ty of Nampa for the same intersection with no disclosure
10 of the interest of a third-party developer. It was only
11 through the communication of Idaho Power employees that the
12 discovery of the third-party developer beneficiary interest
13 in the "city's" project was made.
14 Q.Have you observed other instances of
15 inappropriate cost shifting from developers to Idaho Power
16 customers?
17 A.Yes. There have been requests made by the
18 lTD for improvements in road rights-of-way where the lTD
19 portion of the improvement does not require a relocation of
20 Company facilities but the construction done for the
21 benefit of a third party does. Here, the city in which the
22 highway improvement is being made formed a Local
23 Improvement District ("LID") to install sidewalks or other
24 improvements which require the relocation of Company
LOWRY, DI 6
Idaho Power Company
1 facilities. If the Idaho Transportation Department does
2 not disclose to the Company that the LID has been formed to
3 do additional work in the right-of-way as a third party,
4 the LID will collect funding from nearby property owners
5 only for the improvements and relocation of city-owned
6 utilities but not for all the utilities in the right-of-
7 way. lTD then requires Idaho Power and other private
8 utility companies to fund the relocation costs of their
9 utility facilities. Correspondence between Idaho Power,
10 lTD, and the City of Nampa has been included as Exhibit No.
11 1 to my testimony to illustrate how this cost shifting
12 occurs.
13 Q.Is this method of avoiding payment of
14 relocation expenses a recent trend?
15 A.Probably not. However, the discovery of the
16 frequency of Public Road Agencies inappropriately
17 facilitating a shift of relocation expenses is recent. The
18 Company's decision to consolidate review of Public Road
19 Agency requests for relocations under one person in 2006
20 has given the Company a better overall knowledge of the
21 projects and how they are financed.
22 Q.How frequently does this cost shifting
23 occur?
LOWRY, DI 7
Idaho Power Company
1 A.In the last three years I am aware of
2 several occurrences. However, even when the discovery is
3 made and the cities are contacted, there is reluctance on
4 the cities' part to share the cost of relocation because
5 the existing language in Rule H does not explicitly set out
6 the rules governing cost recovery in the case of third-
7 party requests affecting utility facilities in public
8 rights-of-way or the relocation responsibilities of the
9 LIDs.
10 Q.How much do facility relocations to
11 accommodate roadway changes for new developments typically
12 cost?
13 A. The cost of facility relocations can vary
14 widely. I am aware of relocations ranging in cost from
15 $1,500 to $350,000.
16 Q.Do you believe the proposed Rule H
17 relocation language, as described in greater detail in Mr.
18 Spark's testimony, will provide Public Road Agencies and
19 the public with needed clarity as to how responsibility for
20 relocation costs is to be apportioned?
21 A.Yes.
22 Q.Does this conclude your testimony?
23 A.Yes.
LOWRY, DI 8
Idaho Power Company
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTiliTIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-22
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
LOWRY, 01
EXHIBIT NO.1
- "0
'-'!
ITO LEGAL
.. ................__.__._._---_.''''. -,.-...~----._-....'-........__.
(. A~:20B3344498 Jun 272007 'ru;12 P.02
STATE OF IDAHO . ...",
OFFice OF THE ATTEYGENERL . . .:
LAWRENCE G. WASDE:~
..~ 0.. '.,
~.Q
Juie 27, 200
Via Fax: [phone]
Davd Lowr
Relocaon Leer
Ida POfler Company
POBox 70
Boie, ID 83707
Dea Mr. Lo-wTy
I jive reewed you leter of Jue 25, 2007, wrtt on behal of Idaho Power
andQwes~ to Sue:Egg Secrta to the Idao Traoron Board.
Pll to Idaho Code 40-312(3), utties are pe.ssive user of
Dept rit of way and shal relocate in accrdance with the Orer of th Idaho
Traportation Boar (Boar). A Boar Order wa issued lat wee following an
ex revew of the hitory of both the prject and the more recet postig
concrn payment for the relocaon.
PIea be advised tht the constction projec is a state fu hiy
imprvement, the "Utiities ar withi our righ of w~y, relocation is necsa to avoid
dela; to Qur projec and to avoid inconveene to th.e travel public. Idao Power an
Qwest have been awa; of the nee for ths i:e1ocation for many months, and the
Departn will not acct your faur to reoV'& the utilties in a tielynier.
I have reew numerous letter and e-mai that suggt Idao Pow and Qwest
wi ony re10caté thei facities up a comnent of reburseen for the cost.
Whle I acowledg the arguent you atem to advance, be adved that th Boar
Order requi relocaon at your expene. Potetialy the ficial resonsbilty for the
relocation could be addessed concu with the relocati or followi it, howe) the
Depènt wi not tolerate payment to be used as a barga tool ptor tD you sta
work.
Exhibit No. 1Coracl~Adminlsa\élaDlvon, Transol1atn Depirtert Case No. IPC-E-08-22p.o. 60x 7129, ßOI,ID 8370-1129;~hoe: (2) 33-81S¡ F;i; (208) 33 Id h P C pany
loctsat3311W.siStree\8Qii,1do,83-5i D.Lowry, a 0 ower om
Page 1 of6
t"r:lTD LEGAL ('ii aX: 2083344498 Jun 27 2007 C1'):13 p; 03
DavdLowx
June 27~ 2007
PageS
Pleàse be fuer advised tht the faiure to relocae your facities could
signcay delay our project and fuer inconveJJence the travelin public. Should
such delay occur, the Boar wi seek reimbument and ath appropnte relief fr
t1e Utities i:~onsible. Pleåse govem. yourelf accoly:'.. .'. .:... ..: ~.'"
. ..... -":.:....."
KDV/jc
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-22
D. Lowry. Idaho Power Company
Page 2 of6
c ~IDA~PCQl
An IDACORP Company
:.~: ~ . .'0- '.
Mr. KarID. Vogt
Deputy Attorney General
State of Idaho
Idaho Trasportation Deparent
Contrcts & Admnistrative Law Division
P.O. Box 7129
Boise, ID 83707-1129
June 29, 2007
Re:IT Nampa-Boulevar Relocation
Dear Mr. Vogt:
Idao Power and Qwest have reviewed your lettr date June 27, 2007, regarding the
relocation of pole line facilties from IT's Nampa-Caldwell Boulevard right-of-way. The
utilties wil proceed with their relocation of the facilities as previously indicated, and withn the
end of July timeline reuested by the City of Nampa and IT.
Please understand that in our prior correspondence Idaho Power and Qwest were not seeking
to disrupt the improvement work in question. We were merely trng to confirm ahead of tie
that the cost of the relocation work would be reimbured to the utilities, since the facilties would
be relocated to make way for the LI #136 improvements. The initial request for the relocation
came from the City of Nampa in connection with the LI improvements, and the poles ar being
removed from the same area where the LI improvements ar to occur. Under ths situation, the
utilities ar routinely reimbursed for the cost of relocating their facilties to make way for the
third-pary development.
In any event, we appreciate the willngness expresed in your letter to addrs the
reimbursement issue 'furher. Idao Power and Qwest believe that it would be best to sit down
with lTD and the City of NampaI #136 representatives to discuss the relocation. . The utilities
greatly value our ongoing relationships with the Deparent and the City, both with regar to
cooperative roadway work and in our broader relations, and we look forward to resolving this
matter amcably.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Docktr, P.E.
T &D Design Leader
cc: Mar Dobson (Qwest)
Pat Hanngton
Dave Lowry
Colleen Ramsey
Ed Kosydar
Mike Ybarguen
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-22
D. Lovt~'1~~~~~er Companyiii W.ldahO St. Page 3 of 6
Boise. 108302
l:
(,('.__
An IDACORP Company
IDO PO COMAN
P.O. BOX 70
BOISE, IDA 837
Mic hael Fuss, P .E.
Pub lic Works Dirctor
City of Nampa
Public Works Deparent
411 Thd St South
Nampa, ID83651
July 16,2008
Re: Nampa LID #136
Dear Michael,
Than you for your latest response regardig the relocation of Idao Power facilties from the
Nampa-Caldwell Boulevard right-of-way. There have been several . moving par to ths
discussion so I thought it would be good to rete Idao Power's policy on power line
relocations.
The staing point for Idaho Power relocations is Rule H, on fie with the Idao Public Utilities
Commssion. Rule H states the basic rue tht any pary reuesti the relocation of Idao
Power facilties must pay for the cost of the relocation. Ths assures that the par benefitig
frm the relocation pays for the cost of the work, rather than havig the cost passed on to all of
Idao Power's customers.
There ar additional relocation requireents that apply when Idao Power's facilties are located
with road rights-of-way. As a genera rule, the owner of the road right-of-way may require
Idaho Power to relocate its facilties at Idaho Power expnse for the road owner's own road
improvement projects (assuing Idao Power does not have a separate easement or other
propert right for the facilties). These projects tyically involve road widenig work by the
road owner, in which case Idaho Power relocates its facilties fuer back to the edge of the new
right-of-way at its own expense.
However, Idaho Power's policy is not to relocate its facilties frm road right-of-way at its
expense if the relocation is requi for the benefit of a thd par rather th the road owner. A
tyical example of ths situation is the installation of a tum lane for a new commercial
development. The road owner tyically wi reuir the developer to pay for the cost of the tu
lane, and Idaho Power simiarly requies the developer to pay for the cost of relocatig a power
line to mae room for the tu lane. .
In Idao Power's view ths same priciple applies to its power line relocaton work for LID #136
last suer. Cert improvements were made with the Idaho Deparent of Tranportation
Deparent's (lID) Nampa-Cadwell Blvd right-of-way for the benefit of the LID and its
parcipants. lTD requid the LID to pay for the cost of intalling the improvements and
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-22
P Low Idaho Power CompanyPage 4 of6
Telhone [phone]
,.
;.. -
((
Page #2
Augut 27, 2008
simlarly, Idaho Power should be reimbured for its power line relocation work tht was
necesitated by these improvements.
Ths is Idao Power's policy thughout its serce terrtory - if a power line relocation is
required for road improvements that benefit a specifc developer or grup, the Company reuires
the developer or group to pay for the cost of the relocation. Ths proCedure ha been formaly
recogni by the Ada County Highway Distrct for many year, under ACHD Ordiance 330.
Idaho Power follows the same approach in al other Idao counties with our service terrtory,
even though the other counties have not adopted specifc relocation ordces as ACHD has.
Furermore, Idaho Power's frchise agreements in Idaho recite the rue that Idaho Power is not
required to pay for the relocation of its facilties in city rights-of-way if the relocation is for the
benefit ofa thd par. For iÌance, Nampa's Franchise Ordince No. 3181 sttes in Section 3tht .
The Grtee (Idao PowerJ shall bea the cost of relocatig its facilties at the
City's request, uness the facilties are to be relocated for the benefit of a third
party, in which case the third party shall pay the costs of relocation. (Emphasis
added).
Ths priciple clearly applies to the relocation of Idaho Power's facilties from the lT Nampa-
Caldwell Boulevard right-of-way. Idao Power's facilties were relocated for the benefit of the
LID #136 projectand therefore the LID should pay for the cost of the relocation work. Ths is
Idaho Power's policy thoughout its servce tertory.
Idao Power's relocation policy applies to LIDs in the same maner as any other entity who
request the relocation of Idaho Power failties. In fact, as we have dicussed, Rule H includes
a specific section for LID relocation reuests. Ths section wa added to Rule H to allow the
parcipants of LIDs to pay for power lie alterations though the collective LID payment
mechasm, rather than paying the Company diectly as any other customer or entity would.
You questoned wheter Nampa LID #136 fals with the Rule H defition of LIDs, since LID
#136's puroses are broader than the purose set fort in Rule H - "the stdy, fiancing, and
constrction of a Distbution Line Instalation or alteration". However, Idaho Power believes
Rule H would apply to LID #136, since the stted puroses of LID #136 specifcaly include
"utility improvements". Rule H does not stte tht power line relocations must be the only
purose of an LID. The clear interpretion is tht power line relocaons must be one of the
naed puroses of the LIP, regardless of any other puroses designted for the LID.
An equaly importt point under Rule H is that even if an LID entity is determined" not to mee
the Rule H definition of an LID, ths does not mean that the entity is not requied to pay for
power line inslations and alteraons under Rule H. Rule H applies to any entity requetig a
power lie instaation or alteration, whether it is an LID or not. As indicate above, the LID
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-22
D. Lowry, Idaho Power Company
Page 50f6
-'((
Page #3
Augut 27, 2008
section of Rule H simply provides an opportty for the parcipants of an LID to pay the cost of
faciJity relocations though the collective LID payment process. If an entity does not wish to
follow ths process, it can simply pay the relocation cost diectly to Idaho Power as a reguar
cuscmer and not though the LID mechansm. In either cae though the relocation payment
must be made to Idaho Power.
I hope t~s let answers your questions regardig Idao Power's policy on power line
reloations and how tht policy applies to our relocation work for the LID #136 improvements.
Idao Power feels th it is importt to apply its relocation requiements consistently and to
collect monies tht are due for relocation work for the benefit of all of our customer. Idao
Power agai request tht the City of Nampa and LID #136 reimburse Idaho Power for its
relocation cost for the project of $71,807.00. As before, ths request also includes
reimbursement of the additiona Qwest costs of $48,900, which were also incured in the same
joint relocation work by the utiities (Idaho Power instaled the new poles and re-attched its
electrcal wies to the new poles, whe Qwest removed the existig poles and re-attached its
communcation cables to the new poles). .
Please feel free to contat me if you have any fuer questons regaring ~his reuest.
Sinceely
Michael D. Ybarguen .
Exhibit No. 1
Case No. IPC-E-08-22
D. Lowry, Idaho Power Company
Page 6 of6