20120424order_no_32532.pdf

Office ofthe Secretary
Service Date
Apr11 24.2012
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 )
NEW SERVICE ATTACHMENTS AND )ORDER NO.32532
DISTRIBUTION LINE INSTALLATIONS.)
On March 7,2012,the Commission issued Order No.32476 approving Idaho
Power’s revisions to Sections 10 and ii of its Rule H tariff.The case was returned to the
Commission after an appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court filed by the Ada County Highway
District (ACHD).Idaho Power proposed amendments in response to the Court’s objections to
the tariff,identified by the Commission in Order No.32476 as follows:“Section 10
impermissibly authorized the Commission to require a third party to pay for relocation services
not requested by the party.and Section 11 too broadly directed parties not regulated by the
Commission to comply with the statutory obligation to plan road projects so as to minimize the
relocation of utility facilities.”Order No.32476,p.6.
Petitions for Reconsideration to Order No.32476 were filed March 28,2012,by
ACHD and Build idaho,Inc.,expressing objections to all three paragraphs of Section 10.The
Commission is satisfied that the pleadings of the parties adequately clarify the issues relating to
the first two paragraphs of Section 10.Regarding paragraph 3,Build Idaho argues in its Petition
that the paragraph does not meet the objections of the Court “because it authorizes the
Commission to treat public agencies relocation request as if it is a request for service from a third
party.”Build idaho Petition,p.5.ACHD also asserts “the third paragraph of Section 10 does
not meet the objections of the Court because it allows the Commission to determine whether a
utility relocation demand from a public road agency is really a request for service from the third
party.”ACHD Petition.p.17.
To assist the Commission’s consideration of the Petitions for Reconsideration,the
Commission convened a hearing for oral argument on April 19.2012.During the hearing,it
became apparent that a factual issue regarding application of paragraph 3 of Section 10 is
disputed.In response to questions from the Commission,the parties provided different
responses regarding the ability of a third party to request relocation of electric facilities located
ORDER NO.32532 1
in a public right-of-way.It is unclear in the record whether a third party can request relocation
of those facilities from Idaho Power or must deal solely with a public road agency.
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.The parties may present their evidence in the
form of affidavits,accompanied by written briefs.The Commission does not anticipate
convening a hearing to develop the record,unless requested by a party.The parties are directed
to file written briefs and accompanying affidavits and other evidence no later than May 18,2012.
Responsive briefs and evidence may be filed on or before June 15.2012.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commission grants reconsideration of its final
Order No.32476.The parties are directed to file written briefs,affidavits and other pertinent
evidence on or before May 18.2012.and to file responsive briefs and evidence by June 15,2012.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this 2{’
day of April 2012.
ATTEST:
,i ?
i /
Ján D.JewelV
COmmission secretary
bls/O:IPC-E-08-22 ws2 Remand Reconsideration
/_)////E %7
/
—
4 ...ì
PAUL KJELLANDER.PRESIDENT
k/I J
V
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
MACK A.COMMISSIONER
ORDER NO.32532 2