20091005Brief in Opposition.pdf

Scott D. Spears, ISB # 4180
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Offce: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
sspears (g achd.ada.id. us
RECEIV D
2009 OCT -S PH 2: 43
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO MODIFY ITS RULE H LINE EXTENSION
TARIFF RELATED TO NEW SERVICE
ATTACHMENTS AND DISTRIBUTION LINE
INSTALLATIONS.
)
)
) CASE NO. IPC.E.08.22
)
) ADA COUNTY
) HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S
) BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
) TO IDAHO POWER
) COMPANY'S MOTION
) TOSTRIKE
) PORTIONS OF THE
) AFFIDA VIT OF
) DORRELL R. HANSEN
)
COMES NOW, the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (hereinafter "ACHD"), in
accordance with the Idaho Public Utilties Commssion's Rules of Procedure (hereinafter "RP")
56,256,261 and 265 and hereby submits ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
THE AFFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN. Based upon the following, Idaho Power
Company's (hereinafter "IPC") Motion should be denied.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
1
44805.0001.1677522.1
I. STANDARD OF ADMISSIBILITY
In ruling on the IPC Motion to Strike portions of the Affdavit of Dorrell R. Hansen (the
"Hansen Affidavit") it is important for the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion (the
"Commssion") to consider the full text of RP 261 which provides as follows:
The presiding officer at hearing is not bound by the Idaho Rules of
Evidence. No informality in any proceeding or in the manner of takng
testimony invalidates any order made, approved or confirmed by the
Commssion. Rules as to the admissibilty of evidence used by the district
courts of Idaho in non-jury civil cases are generally followed, but evidence
(including hearsay) not admissible in non-jury civil cases may be admitted
to determine facts not reasonably susceptible of proof under the Idaho
Rules of Evidence. The presiding offcer, with or without objection, may
exclude evidence that is irrelevant, unduly repetitious, inadmissible on
constitutional or statutory grounds, or inadmissible on the basis of any
evidentiary privilege provided by statute or recognized in the courts of
Idaho, and order the presentation of such evidence to stop. All other
evidence may be admitted if it is a type generally relied upon by prudent
persons in the conduct of their affairs. The Commssion's expertise,
technical competence and special knowledge may be used in the
evaluation of the evidence. (Emphasis added.)
In its motion, IPC misstates the meaning and intent of RP 261, which clearly provides
that the Commssion is not bound by the Idaho Rules of Evidence. RP 261 further provides the
Commission "may" exclude evidence that is "irrelevant, unduly repetitious, inadmissible on
constitutional or statutory grounds, or inadmissible on the basis of any evidentiary privilege" and
that all other evidence "may" be admitted "if it is a type generally relied upon by prudent persons
in the conduct of their affairs". Finally, RP 261 provides the "Commssion's expertise, technical
competence and special knowledge" may be used to evaluate the evidence.
Moreover, Idaho Code § 61-601 specifically provides that hearngs of the Commssion
are not bound by the Idaho Rules of Evidence. Section 61-601 provides:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDA VIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
2
44805.0001.1677522.1
All hearings and investigations before the commssion or any
commssioner shall be governed by this act and by rules of practice and
procedure to be adopted by the commssion, and in the conduct thereof
neither the commssion nor any commssioner shall be bound by the
technical rules of evidence. (Emphasis added.)
Acknowledging Idaho Code § 61-601, the Idaho Supreme Court stated in Boise Water Corp. v.
Idaho Public Utilties Commission, 97 Idaho 832, 838, 555 P.2d 163 (1976):
The Commssion is not bound by technical rules of evidence in deciding
such issues, since it is a quasi-legislative body. (Emphasis added.)
97 Idaho at 838,555 P.2d at 169. In so ruling, the Idaho Supreme Court referred to its
earlier decision in Application of Citizens Utilties Co., 82 Idaho 208, 351 P.2d 487
(1960) in which the Court stated in pertinent par:
The public utility commission is a fact-finding, administrative agency and
as such is not bound by the strict rules of evidence governing courts of
law. (Citations omitted.) However, its findings must be supported by
substantial and competent evidence. (Citations omitted.) It cannot make a
finding based upon hearsay. (Emphasis added.)
82 Idaho at 213,351 P.2d at 492. Also noteworthy is the following language from the
Idaho Supreme Court in Application of Lewiston Grain Growers, 69 Idaho 374, 207 P.2d
1028 (1949) regarding the admissibilty of evidence before the Commssion under Idaho
Code § 61-601:
Generally speakng, the law governing the Commssion contemplates a
rule of liberality in the reception of evidence. (Emphasis added.)
69 Idaho at 380, 207 P.2d at 1032.
IPC's reliance upon Esser Elec. v. Lost River Ballstsics Technologies, Inc., 145 Idaho
912, 118 P.3d 854 (2008) for its contention that portions ofthe Hansen Affidavit must be
stricken because they do not comply with the standards for admissibilty required of affidavits in
motions for summary judgment is misplaced. First, this proceeding is not a summar judgment
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIK PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDA VIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
3
4405.0001.1677522.1
proceeding and the standards of admissibilty of affdavits under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure
("I.R.c.P.") 56(e) are inapplicable. Second, this is not a court proceeding and the Idaho Rules of
Evidence ("I.R.E.") are not applicable in this proceeding. I.C. § 61-601; I.R.E. 101; RP 261;
Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Public Utilties Commission, 97 Idaho 832, 838, 555 P.2d 163, 169
(1976). Third, even if this was a court proceeding, the Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that
affidavits fied in court proceedings other than a motion for summar judgment, do not need to
satisfy the standards for admissibility that are prescribed by the Idaho Rules of Evidence.
In Obendorfv. Terra Hug Spray Co., Inc., 145 Idaho 892, 900-901, 188 P.3d 834,842-
843 (2008), the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that an affdavit in support of a motion for new trial
is not required to comply with the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The Court began its analysis by
noting that Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.) Rule 56(e) governing affdavits in summary
judgment proceedings requires that "supporting and opposing affdavits shall be made on
personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall
show affrmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein". The
Court then explained:
If we were to conclude that every affdavit fied in connection with every
motion under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure must satisfy the Idaho
Rules of Evidence, as suggested by the Respondents, the effect would be
to render this provision of I.R. c.P. 56( e) mere surplusage. . . . We are also
mindful of the admonition, contained in the 1.R.c.P. l(a) that the rules of
civil procedure "shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determnation of every action and proceeding." For these
reasons, we conclude that an affidavit fied in connection with a motion
for a new trial need not meet the standards of admissibilty prescribed by
the Idaho Rules of Evidence. FN5 We therefore conclude that the district
court did not err when it denied Respondents' motion to strike the affidavit
of counseL.
FN5. We do not suggest that the trial court must blindly accept every
fact or conclusion advanced in an affdavit in support of a new trial
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIK PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDA VIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
4
44805.0001.1677522.1
what would not be admissible in evidence. To the contrary, the trial
court may consider evidentiar deficiencies in evaluating the weight. if
any, to be given an affdavit that would not be admissible in evidence.
(Emphasis added).
145 Idaho at 900-901, 188 P.3d at 842-843.
The statements in the Hansen Affdavit clearly satisfy the standards of admissibilty that
are applicable in this proceeding before the Commssion. The Commssion is authorized and
capable of applying its expertise, technical competence and special knowledge in evaluating the
evidence that is presented in the Hansen Affidavit.
II. PARAGRAPH 3
In Paragraph 3 of the Hansen Affdavit, reference is made to certain exhibits, which were
not attached. Paragraph 3's insertion in the Affdavit was a clerical error by ACHD and
Paragraph 3 should be disregarded by the Commssion.
III. PARAGRAPHS 6, 8, 12 & 13
A. Paragraphs 6 & 8.
In Paragraph 6 of the Hansen Affidavit, the Affant states that under Idaho law, ACHD
has exclusive jurisdiction, authority and control over all roads in Ada County, except the
Interstate and state highways. In Paragraph 8, the Affant states under Idaho law, utilties have
the right to locate in the public rights-of-way, but the right of the utilities to use the public rights-
of-way cannot be regarded as a permanent property right. The Affiant further states that when a
road project impacts a utilty in the public right-of-way, the utility is responsible for relocations
and adjustments in a manner and at such places as to not inconvenience public use.
The statements in Paragraphs 6 and 8 should be construed as stating the Affant's
understanding of the laws that are relevant to this proceeding. Paragraph 9 of the Affidavit of
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDA VIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
5
44805.0001.1677522.1
Dorrell R. Hansen clearly indicates his significant and substantial employment at ACHD from
1993 to the present; beginning as a Staff Civil Engineer, DrainagelUtility Division from 1993-
1997; then Supervisor, DrainagelUtilities Division from 1997 to 2000; then Assistant Manager,
Engineering Deparment from 2000 to 2006; and finally, Project Manager/Supervisor, Capital
Projects Department from 2006 to the present. In Paragraph 11 of the Affdavit, Mr. Hansen
testifies that he created and supervised the Utilties Division at ACHD and headed that division
until 2006 as foundation for his subsequent opinions.
Mr. Hansen's understanding of ACHD's jurisdiction of the public right-of-ways under
Idaho Code Title 40, Chapters 13 and 14 is relevant in these proceedings. The statutes provide:
40-1310. POWERS AND DUTIES OF HIGHWAY DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS.
(1) The commssioners of a highway district have exclusive general
supervision and jurisdiction over all highways and public rights-of-way
within their highway system, with full power to constrct, maintain,
repair, acquire, purchase and improve all highways within their
highway system, whether directly or by their own agents and employees or
by contract. . . .
(Emphasis added.)
(8) The highway district board of commssioners shall have the exclusive
general supervisory authority over all public highways, public streets
and public rights-of-way under their jurisdiction, with full power to
establish design standards, establish use standards, pass resolutions and
establish regulations in accordance with the provisions of title 49, Idaho
Code, and control access to said public highways, public streets and public
rights-of-way. (Emphasis added.)
40-1312. GRANT OF POWERS TO BE LffERALL Y
CONSTRUED. The grant of powers provided in this chapter to highway
districts and to their offcers and agents, shall be liberally construed, as a
broad and general grant of powers, to the end that the control and
administration of the districts may be efficient. The enumeration of certain
powers that would be implied without enumeration shall not be construed
as a denial or exclusion of other implied powers necessary for the free and
effcient exercise of powers expressly granted. (Emphasis added.)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
6
44805.0001.1677522.1
40-1406. POWERS AND DUTIES OF HIGHWAY COMMISSIONERS -
- ONE HIGHWAY DISTRICT IN COUNTY -- HIGHWAY POWERS
OF CITIES IN COUNTY ABOLISHED -- LAWS IN CONFLICT
SUPERSEDED. The highway commssioners of a county-wide highway
district shall exercise all of the powers and duties provided in chapter 13
of this title, and are empowered to make highway ad valorem tax levies as
provided by chapter 8, of this title.
* * *
Wherever any provisions of the existing laws of the state of Idaho are in
conflict with the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this chapter
shall control and supersede all such laws. (Emphasis added.)
Additionally, Mr. Hansen's understanding ofthe responsibilty of utilities to relocate is
relevant to these proceedings. Idaho Code § 62-705 provides:
62-705. RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ELECTRIC POWER COMPANIES
AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY AGENCY
THEREOF. Any person, company or corporation incorporated or that may
hereinafter be incorporated under the laws of this state or of any state or
territory of the United States, and doing business in this state, the United
States of America or any agency thereof, for the purpose of supplying,
transmitting, delivering or furnishing electric power or electric energy by
wires, cables or any other method or means, shall have and is hereby given
the right to erect, construct, maintain and operate all necessary lines upon,
along and over any and all public roads, streets and highways, except
within the limits of incorporated cities and towns and across the right of
way of any railroad or railroad corporation, together with poles, piers,
ars, cross-ars, wires, supports, structures and fixtures for the purposes
aforesaid, or either of them, in such manner and at such places as not to
incommode the public use of the road, highway, street or railroad, or to
interrpt the navigation of water, together with the right to erect, construct,
maintain and operate upon said electric power line a telephone line to be
used only in connection with the said electric energy and power line; . . .
(Emphasis added.)
It is relevant and useful to the Commssion to know Mr. Hansen's understanding of the
relevant laws and the basis for that understanding. Because the Commission is not bound by
technical rules of evidence in deciding such issues, the Commssion has the authority to treat the
statements in Paragraphs 6 and 8 as statements of Mr. Hansen's understanding of the laws
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIK PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDA VIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
7
44805.0001.1677522.1
governing the issues before the Commission and to deny IPC's Motion to Strike Paragraphs 6
and 8.
ACHD would also point out to the Commssion that Mr. Hansen is every bit as qualified
to provide his understanding of ACHD' s jurisdiction and the responsibilities of utilities to
relocate pursuant to Idaho Code § 62-705 as is Mr. Gregory W. Said and Mr. David R. Lowry
who have provided Direct Testimony in this case. Specifically, on page 6, lines 6-12 of his
direct testimony, Mr. Said testifies as follows:
Under Idaho law, government agencies charged with constructing,
operating, and maintaining roads, such as the Idaho Transportation
Deparment and the Ada County Highway District have the authority to
require the relocation of Company-owned transmission and distribution
facilities that are sited in road rights-of-way at Company expense.
On page 3, lines 2 to 5 of his direct testimony, Mr. David R. Lowry testified as follows:
If a relocation of facilties is required due an identified and budgeted
highway project, Idaho Power is legally required to fund the relocation
cost.
ACHD notes with concern the disingenuous position IPC has taken in attacking Paragraphs 6 and
8 of the Affdavit of Dorrell R. Hansen while at the same time proffering similar testimony from
its own witnesses. ACHD respectfully requests that the Commssion deny the IPC's motion to
strike Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the Affdavit of Dorrell R. Hansen.
B. Paragraphs 12 & 13.
In Paragraph 12 of the Hansen Affdavit, the Affant states that he has extensive
knowledge of ACHD's interactions with utilities in Ada County, including Idaho Power, on
issues involving utilty relocations in the public rights-of way on road projects and that
historically, ACHD has had extensive problems in getting some utilties to relocate in a timely
manner. He further states that the lack of coordination of utilities for road projects has caused
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIK PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDA VIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
8
4405.0001.1677522.1
delay and contractor claims for road projects. In Paragraph 13, Affant Hansen states that the
proposed Rule 10 wil severely impact ACHD's statutory responsibilty to develop road projects
and the public's use ofthe right-of-way.
IPC erroneously asserts that portions of Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Affdavit of Dorrell
R. Hansen "must" be stricken because they are inadmissible. As noted above with citations, the
Commssion is not bound by technical rules of evidence. The Commssion is a quasi-legislative
body, and the law governing the Commssion contemplates a rule of liberality in the reception of
evidence. Application of Lewiston Grain Growers, 69 Idaho 374, 380, 207 P.2d 1028, 1034
(1949). The Commssion is authorized and capable of applying its expertise, technical
competence and special knowledge to evaluate this evidence.
The IPC objections to the statements of Mr. Hansen in Paragraphs 12 and 13 are not well
founded. In Paragraph 9 of his Affdavit, Mr. Hansen establishes his significant and substantial
employment history at ACHD dealing directly with utilities from 1993 to 2000. In Paragraph 10
of his Affidavit, Mr. Hansen establishes his extensive personal knowledge of road development
and the role that utility relocation can playas an "important element of project development,
which can significantly impact a project schedule and costs." Also, in Paragraph 11 of the
Affidavit, Mr. Hansen states that he created and supervised the Utilities Division at ACHD and
headed that division until 2006.
Furthermore, in Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Affidavit, Mr. Hansen describes the basis of
his knowledge in describing the interactions with utility companies relating to relocations.
Specifically in Paragraph 12, the Affidavit states:
12. I have extensive knowledge of ACHD's interactions with utilties in
Ada County, including Idaho Power, on issues involving utilty relocations
in the public rights-of-way on road projects. The Utility Division was
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
9
4405.0001.1677522.1
created in an effort to coordinate the relocation of utilties on road
projects.
These are undisputed facts which clearly establish Mr. Hansen's knowledge and experience with
regard to the remainder of Mr. Hansen's statement in Paragraph 12, that:
Historically, ACHD has had extensive problems in getting some utilties
to relocate in a timely manner. The lack of coordination of utilities for
road projects has caused delay and contractor claims for road projects.
These are also statements of fact and do not require citations to specific examples. The
Commission is capable of weighing this evidence without citations to specific examples.
Corroborating Mr. Hansen's testimony in Paragraph 12 of his Affdavit is the Statement
of Purpose for Senate Bil 1097 (2009 Idaho Legislative Session) which, pursuant to IPR 263,
the Commssion may take offcial notice. The Statement of Purpose for Senate Bil 1097
provides:
The purpose of this legislation is to provide for a proactive, coordinated
process early in the development of public highway projects in an attempt
to minimize costs, limit disruption of necessary public and private utilty
services, and limit or reduce the need for present or future relocation of
such utility facilities. The legislation recognizes that the owner of utility
facilities must recognize the essential goals and objectives of the public
highway agency in proceeding with and completing a project, but provides
the opportunity, by early involvement in the process, for the paries to
actively seek ways to eliminate costs arising out of the relocation of utilty
facilties, or, if elimination of such costs is not feasible, to minimize
relocation costs to the maximum extent reasonably possible. (Emphasis
added)
With regard to Paragraph 13, Mr. Hansen's Affidavit states:
13. I have reviewed the Idaho Public Utilties Commssion Rule 10, which
transfers ACHD's authority to control the timing of the relocation of
utilities to Idaho Power.
Given his stated background and technical knowledge of the subject area, Mr. Hansen is
clearly not a lay witness in this matter. Thus, IPC's reliance upon I.R.E. 701 and Hawkins v.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIK PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
10
44805.0001.1677522.1
Chandler, 88 Idaho 20,396 P.2d 123 (1964) is misplaced. Mr. Hansen is obviously an expert
witness with training, knowledge and experience whose opinions wil assist the Commssion in
deciding this matter.
Even under i. R. E. 702, Mr. Hansen is qualified to provide an opinion to the
Commssion concerning the potential effects of Rule 10. See, e.g., Weeks v. Eastern Idaho
Health Services, 143 Idaho 834, 153 P.3d 1180 (2007), in which the Idaho Supreme Court stated:
Qualifcation. The district court held that Dr. Smith did not qualify as an
expert on the issue of causation. The test for determning whether a
witness is qualified as an expert is "not rigid" and can be found in Idaho
Rule of Evidence 702. West v. Sonke, 132 Idaho 133, 138-39, 968 P.2d
228,233-34 (1998). Idaho Rule of Evidence 702 states:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge wil assist the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise.
A qualified expert is one who possesses "knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education." I.R.E. 702. Formal training is not necessary, but
practical experience or special knowledge must be shown to bring a
witness within the category of an expert. Waren, 139 Idaho at 605,83
P.3d at 779 (citing West, 132 Idaho at 138-39,968 P.2d at 233-34). The
proponent of the testimony must lay foundational evidence showing that
the individual is qualified as an expert on the topic of his or her testimony.
* * *
The test for admissibilty of expert testimony is Rule 702.
143 Idaho at 837-838, 153 P.3d 1186-1187.
As is clearly demonstrated in his Affdavit, Mr. Hansen is qualified as an expert
on the topic of his testimony concerning utilty relocations and is well qualified to give an
expert opinion that Rule 10 wil severely impact ACHD's statutory responsibilty to
develop road projects and the public's use of the right-of-way.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
11
44805.0001.1677522.1
Additionally, ACHD notes once again that IPC objects to opinions of Mr. Hansen,
but offers contrary opinions in the proposed Direct Testimony of Mr. Gregory W. Said
beginning at page 7, line 4. Under IPC's erroneous view of the admissibilty of evidence
before the Commssion, portions of the testimony of Mr. Gregory W. Said would be
inadmissible because it is based on hearsay, is unduly repetitious, lacks foundation, and is
conclusory and speculative. ACHD therefore notes with concern the disingenuous
position IPC has taken in attacking portions of Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Hansen
Affdavit.
For all the reasons stated above, ACHD respectfully requests that the Commssion
deny the IPC' s motion to strike portions of Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Affidavit of
Dorrell R. Hansen.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the Commssion is not bound by technical rules
of evidence in deciding the issues before it because it is a quasi-legislative body and the law
governing the Commssion contemplates a rule of liberality in the reception of evidence. Even if
the Affidavit of Dorrell R Hansen were subject to the rules of evidence, any noncompliance with
the rules of evidence in Mr. Hansen's Affdavit would only go to the weight ofthe evidence, not
its admissibilty. There is no basis upon which the Commssion should strike the subject
testimony. ACHD respectfully requests that IPC's Motion to Strike be denied in all respects.
:1
Respectfully submitted this ~ day of October, 2009.
~~.()~¿~
SCOTT D. SPEARS, Alttioner,
Ada County Highway District
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIK PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
12
44805.0001.1677522.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the S.ttay of October, 2009, I caused to be delivered by hand or by e-
mail and U.S. Mail (postage pre-paid) in the manner indicated, a tre and correct copy of the
foregoing ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE AFAVIT OF DORRELL R.
HANSEN upon the following paries:
Jean D. Jewell, Commssion Secreta
Idaho Public Utilities Commssion
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Service: Hand
Krstine Sasser
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
krs .sasser(g puc .idaho.gov
Service: e-mail &U.S.Mail
Lisa Nordstrom
Baron L. Kline
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
lnordstrom (gidahopower.com
bkline (gidahopower .com
Service: e-mail &U.S.Mail
Michael C. Creamer
Givens Pursley, LLP
601 W. Bannock St.
Boise, ID 83702
mcc (g givenspursley .com
Service: e-mail &U.S.Mail
Scott Sparks
Gregory W. Said
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707-0070
ssparks (gidahopower .com
gsaid (gidahopower .com
Service: e-mail & U.S. Mail
Micheal Kurtz, Esq.
KurtJ. Boehm, Esq.
Boehm, Kurtz & Lowry
36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 1510
Cincinnati,OH 45202
mkrtz (g BKLlawfir.com
kboehm (g BKLlawfirm.com
Service: e-mail &U.S.Mail
Matthew A. Johnson
Davis F. VanderVelde
White Peterson Gigray Rossma
Nye & Nichols, P.A.
5700 E. Franin Road, Suite 200
Nampa, ID 83687
mjohnson (gwhitepeterson.com
dvandervelde (gwhitepeterson.com
Service: e-mal &U.S.Mail
Kevin Higgins
Energy Strategies, LLC
Parkside Towers
215 S. State Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
khiggins (genergystrat.com
Service: e-mail &U.S.Mail
ADA COUNY HIGHWAY DISTRICTj?~D.~ -
SCOTT D. SPEARS~ttorey for the Petitioner
Ada County Highway District
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE
AFIDAVIT OF DORRELL R. HANSEN
13
44805.0001.1677522.1