20120615Reply to Briefs.pdf

HO
PNER®
RECEWED An IDACORP Company
2012 JUN 15 PM 2: 37
LISA D. NORDSTROM
Lead Counsel i Q A HC PUE., Inordstromtäidahopower.com Ji]LTlE$ COMMiSSION
June 15, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
Re: Case No. IPC-E-08-22
Modification of Rule H Line Extension Tariff - Reply to Briefs on
Reconsideration
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are an original and seven (7)
copies of Idaho Power Company's Reply to Briefs on Reconsideration.
Very truly yours,
Lisa D. Nordstrom
LDN :csb
Enclosures
1221 W. Idaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
LISA D. NORDSTROM (ISB No. 5733)
PATRICK A. HARRINGTON (ISB No. 3423)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Inordstrom(idahDower.cOm
pharringtoncidahopower.com
RE CE V ED
2012 JUN 15 PM 2:37
CUMMIIL.
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
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 ) REPLY TO BRIEFS ON
DISTRIBUTION LINE INSTALLATIONS. ) RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission's ("Commission") RP 255 and
332, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "Company"), by and through its attorneys
of record, hereby submits this Reply to Briefs on Reconsideration in response to Ada
County Highway District's Brief in Response to Order No. 32532 ("ACHD Brief') and
Build Idaho Inc.'s Brief in Response to Order No. 32532 ("Build Idaho Brief') (together
the "Briefs").
I. BACKGROUND
On May 25, 2011, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its decision in Ada County
Highway Dist. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 253 P.3d 675 (Idaho 2011) ("ACHD
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -1
v. !PUC'9, holding that the Commission's approval of Sections 10 and 11 of Idaho
Power's Rule H regarding power line relocations from public road rights-of-way
exceeded the Commission's authority under Idaho's public utility statutes. On July 14,
2011, Idaho Power filed a motion with the Commission requesting approval of a new
Rule H Section 10, to replace Sections 10 and 11 which had been partially set aside by
the Idaho Supreme Court in ACHD v. IPUC. Idaho Power subsequently held discussions
with ACHD to address potential changes to the new Section 10 that would meet ACHD's
objections to the section. The parties were not able to agree on all changes to Section
10. However, Idaho Power did amend Section 10 to include several of the changes
discussed with ACHD and filed the amended Rule H Section 10 for approval by the
Commission on January 11, 2012.
On March 7, 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 32476, which approved
Rule H Section 10 as proposed by Idaho Power, with certain modifications by the
Commission ("Current Section 10"). Current Section 10 is presently in force under Rule
H and is attached hereto as Attachment No. 1. ACHD and Build Idaho filed petitions for
reconsideration of the Commission's decision, and the Commission held a hearing for
oral argument on the petitions on April 19, 2012 ("Oral Argument")
On April 24, 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 32532, which granted
reconsideration of Commission Order No. 32476, specifically to address third-party
requests to relocate Idaho Power facilities which are located in the public road right-of-
way. On May 18, 2012, ACHD, Build Idaho, and Idaho Power filed their respective briefs
and affidavits in response to Order No. 32532. Idaho Power is now responding to the
ACHD and Build Idaho Briefs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -2
II. ARGUMENT
The Commission provided a very specific grant of reconsideration in Order No.
32532:
The Commission has determined to grant reconsideration
solely to provide the parties an opportunity to develop the
record regarding paragraph 3 of Section 10, more
specifically, to clarify in the record whether a third party may
request relocation of Idaho Power's facilities that are located
in a public roadway from Idaho Power.
Idaho Power responded to Order No. 32532 with a specific list of projects in which third
parties have requested the relocation of Company facilities located within the public road
right-of-way in recent years. Exhibit A to David R. Lowry Affidavit filed with Idaho Power
Company's Answer to Petitions for Reconsideration dated April 4, 2012. Neither Build
Idaho nor ACHD provided any evidence or argument in their respective Briefs contrary to
Idaho Power's position stated at the Oral Argument—that the Company does in fact
receive requests from third parties from time to time to relocate Company facilities which
are located within the public road right-of-way, with the cost of relocation being paid by
the requesting party (Hearing Transcript at 28-29, 34). Thus, the sole question raised by
the Commission in its grant of reconsideration in Order No. 32532 has been answered
affirmatively—third parties can and do request the relocation of Idaho Power facilities
that are located in a public roadway, as represented by the Company at the Oral
Argument.
ACHD and Build Idaho raise other arguments in their respective Briefs which do
not address the Commission's grant of reconsideration in Order No. 32532. These
arguments largely repeat the positions previously stated by ACHD and Build Idaho in this
proceeding, and Idaho Power's responses to those arguments are already set forth in
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -3
the record for this case. However, Idaho Power does wish to respond to several new or
modified arguments ACHD and Build Idaho have included in their Briefs. While these
arguments are well beyond the scope the Commission's grant of reconsideration in
Order No. 32532, Idaho Power believes they should be addressed to assist the
Commission in properly evaluating the pending petitions for reconsideration filed by
ACHD and Build Idaho.
A. The Commission's Authority to Alter or Amend Its Prior Order Issued in This
Proceeding.
The Commission has authority to approve Current Section 10 under Idaho Code
§ 61-629. Section 61-629 sets forth the process for the Idaho Supreme Court to review
orders of the Commission, and the final sentence of the statute describes the procedure
for the Commission to amend its orders which have been set aside in whole or in part
by the Court:
In case the order of the commission is set aside or set aside
in part, the commission, upon its own motion or upon motion
of any of the parties, may alter or amend the order appealed
from to meet the objections of the court in the manner
prescribed in section 61-624, Idaho Code.
Idaho Code § 61-624 sets forth the procedures for the Commission to rescind,
alter, or amend its orders:
61-624. Rescission or change of orders. The commission
may at any time, upon notice to the public utility affected,
and after opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of
complaints, rescind, alter or amend any order or decision
made by it. Any order rescinding, altering or amending a
prior order or decision shall, when served upon the public
utility affected, have the same effect as is herein provided for
original orders or decisions.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -4
The Commission has followed the procedures described in Idaho Code §§ 61-
629 and 61-624 to modify its order partially set aside by the Idaho Supreme Court in
ACHD v. IPUC and the Commission can accordingly proceed with its approval of
Current Section 10.
ACHD and Build Idaho argue in their respective Briefs that the Commission is
prohibited from making any changes to its Order partially set aside by the Idaho
Supreme Court in ACHD v. IPUC, other than changes that address the objections of the
Court. The ACHD Brief states, "After the Idaho Supreme Court's decision, the
Commission is authorized o n ly to alter or amend the order to meet the objections of the
Court." (Emphasis added.) However, the word "only" is nowhere to be found in Idaho
Code § 61-629. If the Idaho legislature had intended to limit the Commission's authority
to alter or amend its orders set aside by the Idaho Supreme Court to the extent argued
by ACHD and Build Idaho, it would have clearly said so in Idaho Code § 61-629 by
stating that the Commission "may alter or amend the order appealed from only to meet
the objections of the court." However, the legislature did not choose to restrict the
Commission's authority in this manner, and the Commission is not limited in its review
of Rule H Section 10 to make only those changes which meet the objections raised by
the Court in ACHD v. IPUC.
B. ACHD's Misunderstanding of the Third Paragraph of Section 10.
The ACHD Brief suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of the application
of the third paragraph of Section 10. The ACHD Brief states, "Section 10 addresses
utility relocation demands from Public Road Agencies." (Emphasis in original.) ACHD
Brief, p. 2. However, the third paragraph of Current Section 10 does not focus on
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -5
relocation requests from Public Road Agencies; it focuses on relocation requests from
Private Beneficiaries. The third paragraph of Section 10 states, "If one or more Private
Beneficiaries has, directly or indirectly through a Public Road Agency, requested that the
Company's facilities be relocated or removed. . . ." Attachment No. 1, third paragraph.
This focus on Private Beneficiary relocation requests is further emphasized in the revised
language offered by Idaho Power in its April 4, 2012, brief in this proceeding, which
states "If one or more Private Beneficiaries has requested that the Company's facilities
be relocated or removed. . . ." Idaho Power Company's Answer to Petitions for
Reconsideration, p. 7. This language clearly demonstrates that the focus of the third
paragraph of Current Section 10 is on relocation requests made by Private Beneficiaries,
not requests made by road agencies as indicated by ACHD.
ACHD's mistaken belief that the third paragraph of Section 10 applies to
relocation requests from Public Road Agencies rather than from Private Beneficiaries
leads ACHD to the erroneous conclusion that the third paragraph violates the holding of
the Idaho Supreme Court in ACHD v. IPUC. In actuality, the third paragraph of Current
Section 10 has been modified specifically to follow the Court's holding by focusing on
whether a third party has made a request to Idaho Power to relocate Company facilities
from the public road right-of-way. The Idaho Supreme Court stated in ACHD v. IPUC
that "IPUC certainly has the authority to determine the costs that Company can charge a
private person who requests services from Company," but further found that Section 10
exceeded the Commission's authority because "IPUC could require a third party to pay
for services that the third party did not request from Company. . . ." ACHD v. IPUC, 253
P. 3d at 682-83.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -6
The revised third paragraph of Current Section 10 responds directly to the Idaho
Supreme Court's holding by applying only where a Private Beneficiary has "requested
that the Company's facilities be relocated or removed. ." As indicated above, the third
paragraph of Current Section 10 states, "If one or more Private Beneficiaries has, directly
or indirectly through a Public Road Agency, requested that the Company's facilities be
relocated or removed. . . ." The alternative language offered by Idaho Power states, "If
one or more Private Beneficiaries has requested that the Company's facilities be
relocated or removed. . . ." The focus of these provisions on relocation requests made
by Private Beneficiaries specifically follows the Court's holding in ACHD v. IPUC.
C. Rule H Section 6 and Section 10.
ACHD and Build Idaho also assert in their Briefs that private party requests for
relocations of facilities from road rights-of-way should be covered by the relocation
provisions in Section 6. However, Idaho Power believes that relocations from road
rights-of-way are often viewed differently by third parties and thus it is appropriate to
address such relocations separately in Section 10.
In situations where Company power lines are located on private easements, it is
clear that a third party desiring to have the power line relocated must pay the cost of the
relocation to Idaho Power. However, if the power line is located in a road right-of-way,
the third party may believe that it is not required to pay for the relocation of the power
line, particularly if the relocation was required by a Public Road Agency. Section 10
helps clarify in these instances that the third party is in fact required to pay for the
relocation of facilities it wishes to have relocated from the road right-of-way, just as if the
facilities were located on a private easement. This is the procedure that was followed in
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -7
the examples of third-party relocations from public road rights-of-way that Idaho Power
provided as Exhibit A to Mr. Lowry's Affidavit in this proceeding, and Section 10 helps
clarify to third parties that this is the proper procedure to be followed when the private
party wishes to relocate Company facilities located within the public road right-of-way.
Idaho Power strives to make its tariffs clear and understandable to its customers
and other interested parties, who are not always familiar with the details of the
Company's service rules. Thus, while both Section 6 and Section 10 of Rule H address
relocations of Company facilities at the request of third parties, the specific provisions of
Section 10 provide a more complete and detailed description of the requirements for
third-party relocations of Company facilities located in the public road rights-of-way.
Section 10 does not conflict with Section 6 in any way, nor does it cause any harm in
specifically describing the relocation rules that apply to third-party relocations from public
road rights-of-way. Accordingly, Idaho Power believes that Section 10 should be
retained to specifically address the important category of third-party relocations from
public road rights-of-way.
D. ACHD's Proposed Section 10.
ACHD has proposed a revised Rule H Section 10 in Exhibit A to the ACHD Brief.
While Idaho Power recognizes ACHD's effort to provide alternate language that would
satisfy ACHD's concerns with Section 10, the Company believes that the three-
paragraph version of Current Section 10 provides a more complete depiction of Section
10 for reference by Idaho Power's customers and other interested parties.
ACHD's proposed Section 10 combines the first two paragraphs of Current
Section 10 into one paragraph.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -8
Current Section 10:
The Company often locates its distribution facilities within
state and local public road rights-of-way under authority of
Idaho Code § 62-705 (for locations outside Idaho city limits)
and the Company's city franchise agreements (for locations
within Idaho city limits). When the Company is notified of a
road improvement project pursuant to Idaho Code § 40-210,
the Company will meet with the Public Road Agency as
provided in Idaho Code to § 40-210.
If a Public Road Agency determines that the Company's
facilities incommode the public use of any road, highway, or
street, the Public Road Agency can require the company to
relocate or remove the facilities. If a Public Road Agency
determines that the Company's facilities must be relocated
or removed because they incommode the public use of the
road, highway, or street, the Company will relocate its
distribution facilities from or within the public road rights-of-
way and the Company will bear the costs of such relocation.
ACHD Proposed Section 10:
The Company often locates its distribution facilities within
state and local public road rights-of-way under authority of
Idaho Code § 62-705 (for locations outside Idaho city limits)
and the Company's city franchise agreements (for locations
within Idaho city limits). At the request of a Public Road
Agency, the Company will relocate its distribution facilities
from or within the public rights-of-way and the company will
bear the costs of such relocation.
Idaho Power does not support a change to the first two paragraphs of Current
Section 10 because (1) the paragraphs are consistent with the Idaho Supreme Court's
decision in ACHD v. IPUC and (2) the paragraphs would not impact ACHD.
The first paragraph of Current Section 10 was previously included in Section 11 of
Rule H that was reviewed by the Idaho Supreme Court in ACHD V. IPUC. The Court
determined that Section 11 exceeded the Commission's authority, solely due to the
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -9
inclusion of the phrase "and other parties" (ACHD v. IPUC, 253 P.3d at 683), as
indicated below:
11. Eliminating or Minimizing Relocation Costs in Public
Road Rights-of-Way.
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 40-210, the Company will
participate in project design or development meetings upon
receiving written notice from the Public Road Agency that a
public road project may require the relocation of distribution
facilities. The Company and other parties in the planning
process will use their best efforts to find ways to eliminate
the cost of relocating utility facilities, or if elimination is not
feasible, to minimize the relocation costs to the maximum
extent reasonably possible. This provision shall not limit the
authority of the Public Road Agency over the public road
right-of-way. (Emphasis added.)
In response to this finding by the Idaho Supreme Court, Idaho Power replaced
former Section 11 with the new sentence in the first paragraph of Current Section 10
above, which states, "When the Company is notified of a road improvement project
pursuant to Idaho Code § 40-210, the Company will meet with the Public Road Agency
as provided in Idaho Code to § 40-210." This change satisfies the objection of the Court
by removing the phrase "and other parties." However, ACHD maintains that the
sentence still exceeds the Commission's authority because it directs ACHD to meet with
Idaho Power and take other actions under § 40-210. Idaho Power disagrees with this
interpretation and supports the statement of Commissioner Smith at the Oral Argument:
So why are you [ACHD] worried about us directing the
Company, because when you look at section 3 there in 40-
210, it says if a utility has received notice of the preliminary
design meeting as set forth in subsection 2 of this section
and has failed to respond or participate, such failure shall not
in any way affect the ability of the public highway agencies to
proceed, so that tells me that if you give the notice and a
utility doesn't participate, then you go ahead with it and
they've lost their opportunity, so this sentence to me is telling
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -10
the utility that you better be on your toes and participate
when you get the notice, and I can't in my wildest
imagination see how that directs any road agency to do
anything.
April 19, 2012, Transcript at p. 17, II. 3-16.
ACHD also reiterates its objection to the phrase "incommode the public use" in
the second paragraph of Current Section 10. As Idaho Power stated in its brief dated
February 10, 2012, in this proceeding, the second paragraph of Current Section 10 is
not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all conditions under which the Company is
to relocate or remove its facilities from the public road right-of-way. Idaho Power
Company's Answer to Petitions for Reconsideration, pp. 5-6. It simply states the far
most common reason to relocate or remove facilities, for descriptive purposes - where
the Company's facilities "incommode the public use" (as referenced in Idaho Code § 62-
705, authorizing electric utilities to locate their facilities in county road rights-of-way).
Nothing in the second paragraph is inaccurate or detracts in any way from the legal
rights of Public Road Agencies to require utilities to relocate their facilities from road
rights-of-way at no cost to the Public Road Agency.
ACHD proposes a change to the third paragraph of Current Section 10.
Current Section 10:
If one or more Private Beneficiaries has, directly or indirectly
through a Public Road Agency, requested that the
Company's facilities be relocated or removed, the Company
will use reasonable efforts to recover that portion of the total
Relocation or removal costs attributable to the request from
the Private Beneficiaries. If the Private Beneficiaries dispute
the Company's calculation of the Private Beneficiaries' cost
responsibility, either the Company or the affected Private
Beneficiaries may initiate a proceeding to have the
Commission establish the reasonableness of the Company's
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -11
calculation of the Relocation or removal cost responsibility
as between the Company and the Private Beneficiaries.
ACHD Proposed Section 10:
As set forth in Section 6, if an Applicant or Additional
Applicant requests a Relocation of Company facilities within
a public road right-of-way, the Applicant or Additional
Applicant will pay a non-refundable charge equal to the Cost
Quote.
As noted above, Idaho Power has offered alternative language for the
Commission's consideration that would change the phrase "If one or more Private
Beneficiaries has, directly or indirectly through a Public Road Agency, requested that the
Company's facilities be relocated or removed. . ." to "If one or more Private Beneficiaries
has requested that the Company's facilities be relocated or removed. . . ." Also as noted
above, Idaho Power believes that the more detailed description of private party
relocations from public road rights-of-way in Section 10 is beneficial for customers and
other interested parties considering such relocations. In particular, the reference to the
right of the Private Beneficiary or Idaho Power to initiate a proceeding to have the
Commission establish the reasonableness of the Company's calculation of relocation
costs for the Private Beneficiary is of significant value. Accordingly, Idaho Power
supports retaining Current Section 10 in its present form, with the insertion of the
alternate language for the first sentence of Section 10 if deemed appropriate by the
Commission.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is clear that Current Section 10 meets the
objections of the Idaho Supreme Court in ACHD V. IPUC. The Court held in ACHD V.
IPUC that the Commission could not require a third party to pay for the cost of relocating
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -12
Idaho Power facilities located in the public road right-of-way if the third party had not
requested the relocation. Current Section 10 now addresses this point by applying
specifically to relocation requests made by Private Beneficiaries. Current Section 10
also addresses the Idaho Supreme Court's objection in ACHD v. IPUC that the
Commission did not have authority to direct "other parties" to comply with the meeting
requirements of Idaho Code § 40-210. As noted above, this language has been
removed from the first paragraph of Current Section 10, which now applies exclusively to
Idaho Power's compliance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 40-210.
Because Current Section 10 complies with the objections of the Idaho Supreme
Court in ACHD v. IPUC, the Commission should approve Current Section 10 under the
authority granted to it under Idaho Code § 61-629.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of June 2012.
zv~, zo lxautd,~~ —
LISA D. NORDSTkOM
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 15 th day of June 2012 I served a true and correct
copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION
upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the
following:
Commission Staff
Weldon B. Stutzman
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
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
X Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email weldon.stutzman(puc.idaho.qov
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email mccpivensDursIey.com
City of Nampa AND Hand Delivered
Association of Canyon County Highway X U.S. Mail
Districts Overnight Mail
Matthew A. Johnson FAX
Davis F. VanderVelde X Email miohnsonwhiteDeterson.com
WHITE PETERSON GIGRAY dvanderveIde(ãwhitepeterson.com
ROSSMAN NYE & NICHOLS, P.A.
5700 East Franklin Road, Suite 200
Nampa, Idaho 83687-7901
The Kroger Co.
Michael L. Kurtz
Kurt J. Boehm
BOEI-IM, KURTZ & LOWRY
36 East Seventh Street, Suite 1510
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Kevin Higgins
Energy Strategies, LLC
215 South State Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
- Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email mkurtz(äBKLIawfirm.com
kboehm(äBKLlawfirm.com
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email khiçpins(äenerqystrat.com
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -14
Ada County Highway District
Scott D. Spears
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Merlyn W. Clark
D. John Ashby
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS &
HAWLEY, LLP
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, Idaho 83701-1617
Build Idaho Inc.
J. Frederick Mack
HOLLAND & HART LLP
U.S. Bank Plaza
101 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 2527
Boise, Idaho 83701-2527
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email sspearscachd.ada.id.us
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email mclark(äthawlevtroxell.com
j ash byhawIeytroxelI .com
Hand Delivered
X U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email fmackchol land hart. com
Christa Bearry, Legal Assistant
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S REPLY TO BRIEFS ON RECONSIDERATION -15
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-22
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
10. Relocations in Public Road Rights-of-Way
The Company often locates its distribution facilities within state and local public road
rights-of-way under authority of Idaho Code § 62-705 (for locations outside Idaho city
limits) and the Company's city franchise agreements (for locations within Idaho city
limits). When the Company is notified of a road improvement project pursuant to Idaho
Code § 40-210, the Company will meet with the Public Road Agency as provided in
Idaho Code to § 40-210.
If a Public Road Agency determines that the Company's facilities incommode the public
use of any road, highway, or street, the Public Road Agency can require the company to
relocate or remove the facilities. If a Public Road Agency determines that the
Company's facilities must be relocated or removed because they incommode the public
use of the road, highway, or street, the Company will relocate its distribution facilities
from or within the public road rights-of-way and the Company will bear the costs of such
relocation.
If one or more Private Beneficiaries has, directly or indirectly through a Public Road
Agency, requested that the Company's facilities be relocated or removed, the Company
will use reasonable efforts to recover that portion of the total Relocation or removal
costs attributable to the request from the Private Beneficiaries. If the Private
Beneficiaries dispute the Company's calculation of the Private Beneficiaries' cost
responsibility, either the Company or the affected Private Beneficiaries may initiate a
proceeding to have the Commission establish the reasonableness of the Company's
calculation of the Relocation or removal cost responsibility as between the Company
and the Private Beneficiaries.