20090730Answer to Reconsideration Petitions.pdf

eslDA~POR~
An IDACORP Company
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Senior Counsel
July 29, 2009
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-08-22
RuleH
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing please find an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Power
Company's Answer to Petitions for Reconsideration in the above matter.
Very truly yours,~Q~fh~
Lisa D. Nordstrom
LDN:csb
Enclosures
P.O. Box 70 (83707)
1221 W. Idaho St.
Boise, 10 83702
LISA D. NORDSTROM (ISB No. 5733)
BARTON L. KLINE (ISB No. 1526)
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208-388-6936
Inordstrom~idahopower.com
bkline~idahopower.com
RECEIVEn... '.~~J
2069 JUl29 PM~: 49
ID.",i.10. ,-i;r,. '~,. l11 ì ï 1./ ¡i. ¡ i;,
UTILITIES CO~X~l¡ŠSION
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail:
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR ) CASE NO. IPC-E-08-22
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY ITS RULE H )
LINE EXTENSION TARIFF RELATED TO ) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
NEW SERVICE ATTACHMENTS AND ) ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR
DISTRIBUTUTION LINE INSTALLATIONS. ) RECONSIDERATION
)
Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Powet' or the "Company"), in accordance with
Idaho Code § 61-626 and Procedural Rule 331, hereby responds to the Petitions filed
by the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho ("Building Contractors"),
the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD"), the City of Nampa ("Nampa"), and the
Association of Canyon County Highway Districts ("ACCHD") for Reconsideration of
Commission Order No. 30853 issued on July 1, 2009.
This case presents two distinct sets of issues on reconsideration: (1) the
charges and credits governing New Service Attachments and Distribution Line
Installations or Alterations raised by the Building Contractors and (2) relocations in
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
public road rights-of-way raised by ACHD, Nampa, and ACCHD (collectively referred to
as the "Agencies"). The arguments raised on reconsideration are not new; Idaho Power
Company previously addressed them in its Reply Comments filed May 1, 2009. The
Company requests that the Commission deny the Petitions for Reconsideration filed in
this case and supplements its arguments as follows:
i. BUILDING CONTRACTORS' PETITION
On October 30, 2008, Idaho Power Company proposed modifications to Rule H
charges and credits that help reduce the upward pressure on rates by shifting more of
the cost of new service attachments and distribution line installations or alterations from
system revenue requirement to new customers and/or developers that request
construction. The findings in Commission Order No. 30853 support this approach and
the Company is working assiduously to implement all approved modifications by the
November 1,2009, effective date.
In responding to the Building Contractors' Petition for Reconsideration and/or in
the Alternative for Clarification and Petition of Stay, the Company feels it necessary to
differentiate a residential customer (a customer paying for electric service) from a
developer (a business that does not take electric service). In many instances
throughout their Petition, the Building Contractors refer to a "customer" when the actual
reference is to a developer of a subdivision. For example, the heading at the top of
page 6 of Building Contractors' Petition refers to "Developer (customer) Investment per
lot." This can lead to confusion insofar as the Petition blurs the distinction to reach the
erroneous conclusion that the Order creates "inherently discriminatory rate structure for
line extensions." Building Contractors' Petition at 1-2.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
A. Terminal Facilties and Line Installation Allowances.
Company-funded allowances are intended to provide a limit on the Company
investment in distribution terminal facilities and/or line installations for customers or
developers requesting service under Rule H. The fixed allowances are based on the
most commonly installed overhead terminal facilities and help mitigate intra-class and
cross-class subsidies by requiring customers (those connecting load) with greater
facilities requirements to pay a larger portion (the amount above the allowance) of the
cost to serve them. Allowance levels wil be updated annually by the Company and wil
typically grow with inflation as approved by the Commission per Order No. 30853.
Regardless of whether construction is inside or outside of a subdivided
development, the Company wil provide customers and developers a fixed allowance
equal to the Company investment toward their required terminal facilties. Customers
are eligible to receive maximum allowances up to $1,780 for single-phase services and
$3,803 for three-phase services per service attachment, whereas developers of
subdivisions (with no connected load) are eligible to receive the same amounts for each
transformer installed within a development. In no instance wil allowances exceed the
cost of the facilities provided.
For residential customers connecting load, the allowance generally covers the full
cost the service connection resulting in no cost to the customer. The only cost
difference to customers is that those inside residential subdivisions pay an underground
wire installation charge equal to the differential between overhead service and
underground service. Customers requesting underground service attachments outside
of subdivisions are also required to pay the appropriate underground wire installation
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
charge. In both cases, most customers receive the equivalent of overhead service
attachments without any personal investment because the allowance (credit) provided
by the Company (investment) covers the entire cost of the required service. Customers
requesting services beyond the "standard" or most commonly installed facilities are
required to pay all costs above the provided allowance. As a result, customers are
treated and charged equitably based on a standard overhead service.
1. Building Contractors Incorrectly Characterize Allowance
Amounts.
Contrary to the Building Contractors' claims, customers outside of subdivisions
are not eligible to receive a greater allowance than those inside subdivisions. Instead,
all customers receive allowances for line installations and service connections up to the
equivalent of the cost of standard overhead terminal facilities only - regardless of
whether the connection is inside or outside a subdivision.
Developers of subdivisions (businesses that do not take electric service) on the
other hand, receive Company-funded allowances of $1,780 for each single-phase
transformer installed within a development and $3,803 for each three-phase transformer
installed within a development to help offset their development costs. Here, developers
are paying for and installng a portion of potential future customers' terminal facilities
above the Company's investment as part of a business venture; they are not customers
of Idaho Power. These allowances (Company investment) are credited directly to
developers as a reduced cost that mayor may not be passed on to home buyers (future
rate paying customers).
The Company's required investment in terminal facilities has, and always wil,
vary between service connections within the same customer class. Staffs Comments
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
show that Staff recognizes that wide variation between customers exists within the
residential class. Rather than "precisely matching the recommended allowance with the
average embedded investment for the class, good judgment and simplicity support an
allowance of terminal facilities." Staff Comments at 3-4. Recognition of this is
demonstrated in the level of allowances currently provided under Rule H. For some
customer classes, the Company is required to pay an "open-ended" level of allowance
equal to overhead terminal facilities requirements without regard to the size and type of
terminal facilities required. This results in customers (within the same customer class)
receiving varying levels of Company investment. As shown in Section 3 of the existing
Rule H, some allowances are based on a fixed or flat amount and some are based on
an "open-ended" amount equaling the total cost or a percentage of the total cost of
overhead terminal facilities. The allowances approved in Order No. 30853 do not
depart from existing policy nor do they have a discriminatory effect on customers
because similarly situated customers are treated the same under the tariff.
2. Building Contractors Misread Staffs Comments.
Contrary to the Building Contractors' assertion, it is apparent from Staff
calculations throughout its Comments that Staff did not "mistakenly categorize a $1,780
"per transformet' allowance as a "per new customet' allowance. See Staff Comments,
Attachment 9, page 2 of 4. Nor did the Commission misapprehend approved
allowances as "per customet' rather than "per installed transformet' as is suggested by
the Building Contractors on page 8 of its Petition. On page 10 of Order No. 30853, the
Commission clearly states that "developers of subdivisions and multiple occupancy
projects wil receive a $1,780 allowance for each single-phase transformer installed
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
within a development and a $3,803 allowance for each three-phase transformer
installed within a development." The Building Contractors confuse the facts by
suggesting that developers are equivalent to "customers" and including developer-
related costs in the calculations of customer charges and credits provided under Rule H.
Again, developers mayor may not reduce lot prices to reflect credits they receive from
Idaho Power.
3. Line Extension Cost Recovery Does Not Create "Windfall."
The Building Contractors' Petition also suggests that if the current economic
climate continues for any extended period, a "windfall to the Company and its existing
customers" wil result with "an additional unreimbursed line extension cost to
developers." Building Contractors' Petition at 2 and 6. This is simply not true. The
Company either makes an investment or it does not; if made, the Company expects to
earn a return only on the investment it makes and does not receive a "windfalL." At no
time would the Company "recover costs exceeding the actual new distribution facilities
cost." Id. at 7 (emphasis in original). Idaho Power does not earn a return on these
Contributions In Aid of Construction ("CIAC"). CIAC reduces rate base growth. A larger
payment by a customer or developer wil not create a "windfall" to existing customers
because increased CIACs reduce the responsibility of existing customers to pay for
facilities that do not serve them.
In the event the Commission does not grant reconsideration, the Building
Contractors' Petition requests that the Commission clarify its Order to "clearly confirm
that the Commission now is rejecting its heretofore, longstanding policy that new
customers are entitled to a Company level of investment equal to that made to serve
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
existing customers in the same class. . .." Id. at 2 and 11. No such "confirmation" is
needed nor would it be accurate. The Building Contractors' reference paraphrases a
1997 Commission finding in Order No. 26780, the Commission's last order addressing
Rule H in its entirety. To the extent that Order No. 30853 requires a new customer
payment greater than that made to serve existing customers, it is a reflection that
different circumstances exist in 2009 than did in 1997. While Idaho Power is not
convinced that one order can support the inference of a "longstanding" policy when the
Commission has not revisited the policy in the interim, the fact remains that policy does
not exist in a vacuum. Commission policies can (and do) change as conditions change.
New customer-provided payments are essentially the "entry fee" to become a customer;
that policy has not changed and it has no relationship to existing or past customers.
The amount of the entry fee is different now than it was 12 years ago and correctly
reflects the increased payment in distribution facilities necessary in 2009 to serve new
customers.
The Building Contractors request the Commission confirm that it "recognizes and
intends the disparity in Company investment (and customer charges) as between
existing and new customers and as among new customers inside and outside of
subdivisions created by the Order." Id. Again, no such confirmation is required or
appropriate. It is true that under Order No. 30853, Idaho Power would invest less in
terminal facilities than it has in the past. This is representative of the times Idaho Power
finds itself in. The Company makes many investments for new customers for the
numerous parts of its system that comprise its electric service. The fact is that Idaho
Power's investment per customer is increasing. There are two principal drivers that
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7
effect growth in rates over time: (1) inflation and (2) growth-related costs. The growth
in rates over the past five years (over 21 percent) has outpaced pure inflation,
demonstrating that growth is not paying for itself. Other than Rule H, no means of
assessing the costs of serving new customers directly to those specific customers
currently exists.
The Homebuilders' Court recognized that costs incurred to serve a specific
customer or group of customers, such as line extension costs, may be recovered from
those customers. The Court held:
The instant case presents no factors such as when a
nonrecurring charge is imposed upon new customers
because the service they require demands an extension of
existing distribution or communication lines and a charge is
imposed to offset the cost of the utility's capital investment.
Idaho State Homebuilders v. Washington Water Power, 107 Idaho 415 at 421,
690 P.2d 530 (1984)(emphasis added). Consequently, the Commission does not need
to justify "the disparity in new customer Company investment" based upon the factors
enumerated in Homebuilders (e.g., cost of service, quantity of electricity used,
differences in conditions of service or the time, nature or pattern of use) as suggested
on page 9 of the Building Contractors' Petition. Utilities are permitted to recover line
extension charges that wil offset the actual per-customer cost of physically connecting
to Idaho Power's distribution system. In light of the Company's increased investments
to serve new customers on its system as a whole that wil be paid for by the entire rate
paying public, it is reasonable and prudent for the Commission to require that these
connection costs be fully funded by the individual customers causing them.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 8
B. Lot Refunds.
Under existing Rule H provisions, developers of subdivisions must pay full work
order costs minus Company-funded allowances before the start of construction. In turn,
developers are eligible to receive Company-funded lot refunds for five years as
customers connect for permanent service within subdivisions. Lot refunds are generally
paid directly to developers and mayor may not be passed on to retail customers as they
purchase new homes. Lot refunds are not guaranteed.
The "Comparison of Existing Rule H with Company and Staff Proposals" table
found on pages 5 and 6 of the Building Contractors' Petition mischaracterizes customer
costs by lumping developer investment and allowances with Building Contractors'
alleged embedded costs per customer. Not only does this table misrepresent "new
customer investment," it also contains flawed calculations of the total distribution rate
(embedded costs) per customer as described by the Company's Reply Comments
(pages 5-6) and referenced in Order No. 30853 (page 8). Simply put, the recently
approved allowance levels and refund provisions provided to developers of subdivisions
wil not "raise new customers' investment in distribution" and wil in no way result in the
Company over-collecting line installation costs from "new customers" (actually
developers) as alleged on page 6 of the Building Contractors' Petition. The elimination
of lot refunds wil reduce the Company's rate base because it wil no longer grow by
refunded amounts. In fact, customers as well as developers wil benefit because this
wil hold electric rates down in the long run.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 9
c. Vested Interest Refund Period.
The current five-year vested interest refund period has been in place for more
than 20 years. Although economic conditions have varied over time, the five-year
refund period has remained the same. In its 1997 Order addressing vested interests,
the Commission found a five-year refund period "is reasonable and should be
maintained" because it "balance(s) the competing objectives of fairness and
administrative complexity." Order No. 26780 at 16-17. In that case, the Commission
made a special exception for platted, undeveloped subdivisions and ordered a 10-year
refund period. Id. at 17. The Building Contractors' claim that the all refund periods,
even those in developed subdivisions, should be increased to 10 years is neither
justified nor supported by substantial evidence.
D. Tariff Comparison
Contrary to the arguments of the Building Contractors, Commission's Order No.
30853 does not change long-standing policy relating to the manner in which the
Company applies charges and credits for distributions line installations and new service
attachments. The following chart compares the existing Rule H tariff for residential
subdivisions to that approved in Order No. 30853.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION -10
Charges and Credits to
Deve/o ers of Subdivisions
Equivalent of terminal Equivalent of standard
facilities overhead terminal
Allowances facilties (up to $1,780)
per installed
transformer
Refunds (not guaranteed)$800 per lot Not applicable
Work order costs Work order costs minus
Difference in costs to developers minus allowances.allowances. (not
(eligible for lot refunds eligible for lot refunds)
for 5 ears
Charges and Credits to
Residential Customers
Equivalent of Equivalent of standard
overhead terminal overhead terminal
Allowances facilities + $1,000 facilities ($1,780)
(non-electric heat) or
$1,300 (all electric
heat
Refunds Not applicable Not applicable
Must pay overhead /Must pay overhead /
Difference in cost to customers underground underground differential
differential for for underground
under round services services
The simplicity of the above table clearly demonstrates that the Commission's
Order No. 30853 does not change long-standing policy relating to the manner in which
the Company applies charges and credits for distribution line installations and new
service attachments. In reality, only the monetary levels of charges and credits are
updated to reflect current conditions. The method in which they are applied to
developers and customers has not changed and the Company stil funds a portion of
distribution investment. Furthermore, Order No. 30853 treats existing and new
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 11
customers similarly. Much like a general rate increase, Rule H tariff changes wil affect
customers equally going forward.
E. Procedure on Reconsideration.
Idaho Power objects to the Building Contractors' request that the Commission
"provide for an evidentiary hearing at which the parties' witnesses may be examined
and/or cross-examined on their pre-filed testimony and all matters within the scope of
the same . . .." Building Contractors' Petition at 10. The issues the Building
Contractors plan to address at hearing would seek to "establish an appropriate value of
current Company embedded costs for distribution facilities, a method to true-up those
costs over time, and a fair method for line extension costs, allowances, and refunds to
be paid going forward." Id. All of these issues have previously been addressed by the
parties in written comments. The Building Contractors' Petition does not indicate what
evidence it would present at hearing that is different than what has been offered by the
parties to date, other than just to cross-examine other parties' witnesses on their
positions.
A hearing to address the full scope of its issues, as requested by the Building
Contractors, would be extremely unfair to Idaho Power and the other parties in this
proceeding. It is the equivalent of "starting ovet' procedurally nine months after the
Company filed its Application. The Building Contractors have had multiple opportunities
to request a hearing and declined to do so prior to the issuance of Commission Order
No. 30853. The time to request a full hearing of the Company's Application was at the
pre-Hearing conference on January 14, 2009, or even in one of its two sets of
comments filed on April 17, 2009, and May 1, 2009, if it determined that written
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 12
comments were inadequate to address the issues raised in the Application. If the
Commission finds it needs additional evidence to augment the record in this case, Idaho
Power respectfully requests that it does so though written comments targeted to elicit
the information sought by the Commission.
The Building Contractors also request "a stay of the effective date of those
portions of the Company's Rule H tariff relating to the calculation and payment of
allowances and refunds, including vested interest refunds, pending a final decision on
the merits." Id. at 12. At the Company's request and per Order No. 30853, the charges
and credits authorized by the Order wil become effective for services rendered on or
after November 1, 2009. According to the procedure set forth in Idaho Code § 61-626,
the Commission may take 13 weeks to process reconsideration petitions after they are
filed, and 28 days to issue its order after the matter is fully submitted. If the
Commission grants reconsideration and uses the full statutory reconsideration period,
the Commission wil issue an order no later than November 18, 2009. The Company
would note that a stay may not be necessary unless those additional 18 days are
required to process the Petitions. Absent an Order to the contrary, Idaho Power wil
continue to plan for implementation of the credits and charges approved in Order No.
30853 on the November 1, 2009, effective date.
II. AGENCIES' PETITIONS
The Agencies' Petitions for Reconsideration/Clarification largely restate their
previous objections to Rule H's Section 10. Their Petitions primarily focus on: (1)
whether the Commission has jurisdiction over utility facility relocation amounts assessed
to Idaho Power by public road agencies and (2) the application of Section 10 to third-
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 13
part beneficiaries and local improvement districts. For purposes of this Answer and
the proposed Section 10, a "public road agency" is any state or local agency, county, or
municipality that administers the public road rights-of-way and is requesting Idaho
Power to relocate facilities.
A. Commission Jurisdiction
It is evident from their Petitions that the Agencies continue to misunderstand the
distinction in jurisdiction between public road agencies and the Commission. Order No.
30853 acknowledges that the Agencies have authority to require Idaho Power to
relocate its facilities in public road rights-of-way, at no cost to the public road agency,
where the facilities would incommode the public use. Order No. 30853 at 12. Section
10 does not encroach on the Agencies' authority to determine that relocation of utilty
faculties is necessary. However, the Agencies' authority to require relocation does not
give them sole discretion to decide if the utility wil receive any subsequent
reimbursement from third parties benefitting from the facilities relocation.
The question of who pays for the costs of relocating utility facilities directly bears
on utilty rates and charges and, as a result, fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the
Commission. The Commission has authority under Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and -503 to
regulate how utilities wil recover the costs of relocating their facilities in their rates and
charges. This authority includes the ability to require the beneficiary of a relocation of
utility facilities to contribute the cost of relocation funded by the utility. Such
contributions benefit the rate paying public by reducing upward pressure on rates.
The Commission is obligated to protect the public interest and is charged with
ensuring that costs of utility facilty relocation have not been unreasonably charged to
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION -14
Idaho Power customers when, in fact, the relocation of futility facilities wholly or partially
benefits a person or entity other than the public. If costs are being unreasonably
allocated, the Commission has the authority to provide a remedy. It is reasonable and
prudent that the Commission should approve rules that require the third-part causing
facility relocation to reimburse Idaho Power so that the costs of the relocation are not
unfairly shifted to the Company's customers.
There is nothing in Idaho Code §§ 61-301, -501, -502, or -503 to suggest that the
Legislature divested the Commission of its authority to determine how utilities wil
recover the cost of relocating utility facilities in their rates if public road relocations are
involved. In these statues, the Legislature invested the Commission with broad
authority to regulate the services, practices and contracts of utilities as they affect rates.
Although much is made of the Agencies' exclusive jurisdiction over the
supervision, construction, operation, and maintenance of highways within their districts,
Section 10 addresses the entirely separate issue of whether the utility relocation costs
should be borne by the utility (and its customers) or by a third part who directly benefits
from the relocation. This determination involves the reimbursement of the Company by
the third party and has no impact on the public road agencies' jurisdiction over its rights-
of-way. If Idaho Power seeks reimbursement from a third party for relocation costs
assigned to the Company by a public road agency, it should be of no concern to the
public road agency (which is not a party to subsequent reimbursement dealings).
Moreover, the Commission's Order does not seek to contravene the common law
rule that the utility's use of the public road right-of-way is subordinate to the paramount
use of public road right-of-way if that use interferes with the public benefit. Section 10
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 15
does not require any of the pubic road agencies to reimburse the Company for
relocation costs where relocation is require to benefit the public. The Commission
would have jurisdiction only over the portion of the relocation paid the by utility, and the
utility's subsequent collection of the proportional amount that did not benefit the public
interest from a third party.
Neither Idaho Power nor the Commission disagrees with ACHD that the public
benefits from road projects funded by entities of government, third parties and
developers. However, utility rates that include costs of utility relocation in public rights-
of-way that have been inappropriately shifted from developers to utility customers - the
majority of which live outside the area served by the public road agency - cannot be just
and reasonable as required by Idaho Code §§61-301 and -502. Idaho Power
customers in Pocatello do not benefit from roadway improvements for a new shopping
center in Nampa, but they currently pay for relocation costs in excess of the public
benefit in their rates. Section 10 addresses this issue of fundamental fairness and is
squarely within the Commission's authority.
ACHD suggests that relocations "should be left in the hands of the highway
districts, working in a coordinated effort with local government offcials and utility
companies to develop an approach that is mutually beneficiaL" ACHD Petition at 9.
Idaho Power values its good working relationship with ACHD and believes that
Resolution 330 has greatly contributed to that working relationship since its enactment
in 1986. For this reason, Idaho Power wishes to extend Resolution 330's general
framework through Rule H to its dealings with other public road agencies to make cost
allocations of utility relocations more transparent and less susceptible to inappropriate
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION -16
subsidization of local economic development. If public road agencies such as ACHD
believe these results can be accomplished short of amending Rule H, the Company is
certainly willng to explore these alternatives.
B. Third-Part Beneficiaries and Local Improvement Districts.
The Company agreed in its Reply Comments in this case to clarify the reference
to "local improvement districts" ("LIDs") in Section 10. Rule H already includes a
capitalized, defined term "Local Improvement Districts" in Section 1. This defined term
is limited to local improvement districts created under Idaho Code § 50-2503, to provide
for the study, financing, and construction of distribution line Installations or Alterations.
By contrast, the uncapitalized term "local improvement districts" in Section 10 of Rule H
is a broader term intended to cover any local improvement district created under
authority of Idaho statutes. To clarify this intent, the Company recommends the addition
of the following sentence in Section 10: "For purposes of this Section 10, 'local
improvement district' includes any local improvement district created under the statutory
procedures set forth in Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 17."
ACHD asserts in its Petition for Consideration/Clarification that local
improvement districts and public entities should be excluded from the definition of "third-
part beneficiaries" in Section 10. The Company does not agree with this position. For
instance, public agency developments such as a new offce building may require the
relocation of public road rights-of-way and the power lines located within those rights-of-
way. In such case, the public agency benefiting from the relocation work should pay for
the power line relocations, as opposed to the utilty's customers as a whole. There is no
meaningful difference here between the public agency requesting the relocation and a
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 17
private business requesting the relocation. Similarly, a local improvement district may
be formed to finance a road/curb/gutter/sidewalk improvement project that requires the
relocation of power poles located within the public road right-of-way. In this case, where
the local improvement district is paying for the road improvements in question, the local
improvement district should also pay for the cost of relocating the power line as required
for the improvements. The local improvement district typically derives funding from
adjacent private businesses and land owners and those parties, who are directly
benefiting from the power line relocation, should bear the costs of the relocation, rather
than the utility's customers as a whole.
ACHD also asserts in its Petition for Consideration/Clarification that ACHD has
already established rules for the relocation of utility facilities and the allocation of the
associated costs under its Resolution 330 adopted in 1986. Idaho Power has worked
effectively with ACHD under Resolution 330 and does not intend to interfere with the
ongoing application of Resolution 330. Accordingly, the Company recommends
modification to its proposed Section 10 to state: "This Section shall not apply to utility
relocations within public road rights-of-way of Public Road Agencies which have
adopted guidelines for the allocation of utilty relocation costs between the utility and
third-part beneficiaries that are substantially similar to the rules set out in Section 10 of
Rule H."
c. Procedure on Reconsideration.
ACHD requests reconsideration/clarification of Order No. 30853 by written briefs.
Nampa and ACCHD have indicated that they wil submit written briefs no later than
August 12, 2009, that wil present further legal argument and evidence on Section 10.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 18
Idaho Power and the Agencies have already submitted detailed written arguments on
the legal issues with regard to Section 10 of Rule H. Although it is not evident what
additional legal arguments could be addressed on reconsideration that have not been
raised and responded to previously, Idaho Power agrees that the filing of written briefs
is the proper procedural mechanism to address legal issues on which the Commission
seeks additional argument.
Nampa and ACCHD also request a hearing on reconsideration to present further
argument. Idaho Power does not believe that a hearing would be a proper forum to
debate the type of legal issues raised by the Agencies. If the Commission determines
that written briefs are not sufficient to address the issues raised by the Agencies, Idaho
Power believes an oral argument would better suit the legal nature of the issues present
in this case.
II. CONCLUSION
The Commission's findings in Order No. 30853 were based upon substantial and
competent evidence in the record. Idaho Power respectfully requests that the
Commission issue an Order affrming its findings in Order No. 30853 and denying the
Petitions for Reconsiderations filed in this case. If the Commission determines that it
requires additional evidence upon which to make its reconsideration findings, Idaho
Power requests that written comments/briefs and/or oral arguments be scheduled in lieu
of a hearing for the reasons described above.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 29th day of July 2009.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of July 2009 I served a true and correct
copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION upon the following named parties by the method indicated below,
and addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Kristine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Building Contractors Association of
Southwestern Idaho
Michael C. Creamer
GIVENS PURSLEY, LLP
601 West Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
City of Nampa AND
Assoèiation of Canyon County
Highway Districts
Matthew A. Johnson
Davis F. VanderVelde
WHITE PETERSON GIGRA Y
ROSSMAN NYE & NICHOLS, P.A.
5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 200
Nampa, Idaho 83687
Kroger Co.
Michael L. Kurt
Kurt J. Boehm
BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
36 East Seventh Street, Suite 1510
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
-lHand Delivered
U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-- Email kris.sasser~puc.idaho.gov
Hand Delivered
-LU.S.Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
.- Email mcc~givenspursley.com
Hand Delivered
-LU.S.Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
.- Email miohnson~whitepeterson.com
dvandervelde~whitepeterson.com
Hand Delivered
-LU.S.Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
.- Email mkurtz~BKLlawfirm.com
kboehm~BKLlawfrm.com
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 20
Kevin Higgins
Energy Strategies, LLC
Parkside Towers
215 South State Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
-LU.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-2 Email khiggins~energystrat.com
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION - 21