20120126Memo in Opposition.pdf

Merlyn W. Clark, ISB No. 1026
D. John Ashby, ISB No. 7228
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
877 Main Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 1617
Boise, ID 83701-1617
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208.954.5210
Email: mclarkl§hawleytroxell.com
j ashbyl§hawleytoxell. com
Scott D. Spears
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Email: sspearsl§achd.ada.id.us
Attorneys for Ada County Highway District
RECEIVED
iOli JAN 25 PH 2= 42
JDAH() PiJ8t.~.~t~
UTILITiES COMMISSION
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
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10
TARIFF
The Ada County Highway District ("ACHD"), in accordance with Idaho Code § 61-629
and Procedural Rule 57.03 submits this memorandum in opposition to Idaho Power Company's
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 1
44805.0001.3176880.3
("Idaho Power" or "Company") Amended Motion to Accept Conforming Rule H Section 10
Tariff.
I. INTRODUCTION
In a May 25, 2011, Opinion, the Idaho Supreme Cour set aside Section 10 and 11 of
Idaho Power's Rule H Tariff, which purorted to allocate utilty relocation costs between Idaho
Power and Private Beneficiaries when Public Road Agencies require Idaho Power to relocate its
facilties on public rights-of-way. See Ada County Highway Dist. v. Idaho Public Utilities
Commission, 253 P.3d 675 (Idaho 2011) ("ACHD v. IPUC'). Under Section 10, Private
Beneficiaries would have been required to reimburse Idaho Power for all or a portion of its utilty
relocation costs if the Idaho Public Utilties Commission (the "Commission") determined that a
public road improvement project that necessitated utility relocation was for the benefit of Private
Beneficiaries. Section 11 required Public Road Agencies and other paries to "use their best
efforts to find ways to eliminate the cost of relocating utilty facilties." In its Opinion, the Idaho
Supreme Court reached the following conclusions:
(1) ACHD has the authority to determine if Idaho Power's
facilties incommode the public use of any road, highway, or street
and also has the authority to require Idaho Power to relocate its
facilties at Idaho Power's cost and expense.
(2) The Commission does not have authority to determine whether
a utilty relocation on public rights-of-way is for the benefit of
Private Beneficiaries;
(3) The Commission does not have authority to adjudicate disputes
between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries as to utilty
relocation costs;
(4) The Commission does not have authority to order "other
paries" including Public Road Agencies, to minimize relocation
costs or to otherwise comply with Idaho Code § 40-210.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 2
44805.0001.176880.3
(5) The percentage of road improvement costs that a third pary
agrees to pay a Public Road Agency may bear no relationship to
the percentage of the relocation costs that allegedly benefit the
third party.
Idaho Power has now requested, pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-629, that the Commission
approve a modified version of Rule H Tariff Sections 10 and 11. Under that statute, the
Commission "may alter or amend the order appealed from to meet the objections of the court."
Id. (emphasis added). ACHD objects to Idaho Power's newly proposed Section 10 because it
does not meet the objections of the Idaho Supreme Cour. Instead, it contains language that
directly contradicts the Idaho Supreme Cour's Opinion.
First, the proposed Section 10 inappropriately attempts to incorporate the original version
of Section 11, which the Court rejected. The Cour concluded that the Commission does not have
the authority to require Public Road Agencies or others paries to use their best efforts to
minimize the cost of relocating utilty facilties. The legislature has already enacted this
requirement through the adoption of Idaho Code § 40-210.
Second, the proposed Section 10 purorts to give Idaho Power authority to "determine£)
that one or more Private Beneficiaries has, directly or indirectly through a Public Road Agency,
requested that the Company's facilties be relocated or removed for the benefit of the Private
Beneficiaries." According to the newly proposed Section 10, if Idaho Power determines that a
utilty relocation was for the benefit of Private Beneficiaries, Idaho Power wil seek to recover
whatever portion of the relocation costs Idaho Power determines was for the benefit of the
Private Beneficiaries. This provision is directly contrar to the Idaho Supreme Cour's
ADA COUNTY HIGHWA Y DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 3
44805.0001.3176880.3
conclusion that the Commission does not have the "authority to determine whether the
relocation, in whole or in par, is for the benefit of a third pary." See ACHD v. IPUC, 253 P.3d
at 682-83.
Third, Section 10 provides that if one or more Private Beneficiaries disputes Idaho
Power's relocation costs allocation, "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 responsibilty as between the Company and the
Private Beneficiaries." Section 1O's provision that the Commission will resolve a dispute over
what portion of relocation costs are attributable to the benefit of private beneficiares is directly
contrary to the Idaho Supreme Court's express conclusion that the Commission does not have the
"authority to determine whether the relocation, in whole or in par, is for the benefit of a third
pary." Id. It is also directly contrar to the Commission's admission to the Idaho Supreme
Cour that the Commission "could not adjudicate the dispute between the third pary and
Company." Id. Accordingly, ACHD respectfully asks the Commission to deny Idaho Power's
motion and/or in the alternative requests the Commission to enter a Rule H Section 10 Tariff
consistent with the Cour's decision and in compliance with Idaho Code § 61-629.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Idaho Power's October 30, 2008 Application to Modify its Rule H Tariff
On October 30, 2008, Idaho Power fied an Application with the Commission seeking
authority to modify its line extension tariff commonly referred to as the "Rule H" Tariff, which
generally sets forth Idaho Power's rates and charges for certain services and regulates new
service attachment and distribution line installations or alterations. R., VoL. I, pp. 1-56. Prior to
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 4
44805.0001.3176880.3
Idaho Power's Application, Rule H did not address utilty relocations on public rights-of-way,
leaving issues related to utilty relocation on public rights-of-way to regulations adopted by
Public Road Agencies like ACHD. In connection with the 2008 Application, however, Idaho
Power sought to add two new sections, "Section 10" - allocating cost responsibilty for utilty
relocations required to public road improvement projects on public rights-of-way -- and Section
11. R., VoL. I, pp. 22-23; R. VoL. IV, pp. 648-678.
Section 10, as proposed by Idaho Power, purported to allocate utilty relocation costs
between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries when Public Road Agencies require Idaho Power
to relocate its facilties on public rights-of-way. More specifically, as proposed by Idaho Power,
Section 10 would have required Private Beneficiaries to pay Idaho Power for the percentage of
relocation costs equal to the extent to which the public road improvement project is for the
benefit of Private Beneficiaries.
On July 1,2009, the Commission issued Order No. 30853, granting Idaho Power's
Application to modify Rule H. R., VoL. II, pp. 313-326. ACHD fied a Petition for
Reconsideration, requesting reconsideration and clarification of the Commission's approval of
Section 10. R. VoL. II, pp. 341-357. ACHD objected on grounds that Section 10 exceeded the
Commission's authority and encroached upon ACHD's Resolution 330, which regulates utilty
relocations on public rights of way within ACHD's jurisdiction. Notably, Section 10's
relocation cost allocation model was patterned after, although not identical to, ACHD's
Resolution 330.
After briefing and a hearing, the Commission issued Order No. 30955, which approved a
modified version of Section 10 and added a new section - "Section 11" - to Rule H. R. VoL. IV,
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 5
44805.0001.3176880.3
pp. 648-678. Section 11 purported to mandate that Idaho Power and "other parties" involved in
public road projects "use their best efforts to find ways to eliminate the cost of relocating utilty
facilties, or if elimination is not feasible, to minimize the relocation costs to the maximum
extent reasonably possible." Id. at 659-660; 678.
B. The Idaho Supreme Court Appeal
On Januar 10,2010, ACHD fied an appeal to the Idaho Supreme Cour from the
Commission's final order on grounds that Section 10 and Section 11 of Rule H exceeded the
authority granted to the Commission by the legislature. The scope of the Idaho Supreme Cour's
review of an order from the Commission is governed by Idaho Code § 61-629, under which the
Idaho Supreme Cour determines "whether the commission has regularly pursued its authority."
Under this standard, an order of the Commission is set aside if the order is in excess of the
Commission's jurisdiction. See Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilties Comm 'n, 99 Idaho
374,379,582 P.2d 720, 725 (1978); Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Envtl. Allance,
99 Idaho 875, 878, 591 P.2d 122, 125 (1979) (setting aside a Commission order where the
Commission was "without jursdiction to issue the orders which are the subject of this appeal").
The primary issue addressed by the Idaho Supreme Cour on appeal was whether Section
10 and Section 11 exceeded the Commission's authority by providing that the Commission may
determine whether a utilty relocation, in whole or in par, is for the benefit of a third pary. The
Idaho Supreme Cour noted that the Commission "has the authority to determine the costs that
Company can charge a private person who requests services from Company." See ACHD v.
IPUC, 253 P.3d at 682. However, the Cour held that Section 10 exceeded the Commission's
authority because it goes much furher than that. Specifically, the Court explained:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 6
44805.0001.176880.3
Under Section 10, when a Public Road Agency requires that Idaho
Power relocate its distribution facilties, IPUC has the authority to
determine whether the relocation, in whole or in par, is for the
benefit of a third pary. If it determines that it is, then Section 10
would allocate all or a portion of the costs of relocation to that
third pary. Thus, IPUC could require a third pary to pay for
services that the third pary did not request from Company if IPUC
determined that a relocation required by a Public Road Agency
benefited the third pary. IPUC has not pointed to any statute
granting it that authority.
Idat 682-83. Thus, the express holding of the Idaho Supreme Cour was that the Commission
does not have "the authority to determine whether the relocation, in whole or in par, is for the
benefit of a third pary." Id.
A related issue presented to the Idaho Supreme Cour was whether the Commission has
authority to resolve disputes between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries related to relocation
costs. As to this issue, there was significant disagreement between Idaho Power and the
Commission.
Section 10 has never contained a dispute resolution provision, either in the form proposed
by Idaho Power or as approved by the Commission. Nevertheless, Idaho Power has taken the
position throughout the Commission and Idaho Supreme Court proceedings that the Commission
has the authority to resolve disputes between Private Beneficiaries and Idaho Power regarding
what portion of utilty relocation costs must be paid by Private Beneficiaries. In connection with
the Commission proceedings, Idaho Power submitted a flowchar purorting to explain the
division of jurisdiction between the Commission and Public Road Agencies. R., VoL. III, p. 535.
Idaho Power suggested that Public Road Agencies would have jurisdiction to determine when
Idaho Power must relocate its facilities in public rights-of-way and to "determine£) the
percentage amount, if any, a road improvement wil benefit a third pary." Id According to
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 7
44805.0001.3176880.3
Idaho Power, however, the Commission would have jurisdiction over how Idaho Power
"( c Jollects third-pary percentage share of relocation costs based on same percentage Roadway
Agency charged third-party." Id. Idaho Power further took the position that the Commission
would have "Dispute resolution" jurisdiction with regard to disputes between Idaho Power and
Private Beneficiaries. Id.
The Commission disagreed with Idaho Power's position that the Commission should
resolve disputes between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries with regard to reimbursement of
utilty relocation costs. On appeal, the Commission explained that "(tJhere is no dispute
resolution term in any part of the line extension tariff, and no discussion by the IPUC of a
dispute resolution provision in either Order No. 30853 or Order No. 30955." See Respondent
Brief of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission, p. 26.
Notwithstanding the Commission's clear statement on appeal that the Commission does
not have authority to resolve disputes between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries, Idaho
Power continued to insist that the Commission should and could resolve such disputes. For
example, Idaho Power stated in its briefing to the Idaho Supreme Cour that, "(iJf a dispute
between Idaho Power and a private beneficiary should arise concerning cost recovery by Idaho
Power, the Commission would have jurisdiction to resolve the reimbursement dispute." See
Respondent Idaho Power's Brief, pp. 30-31.
The question of whether the Commission has authority to resolve disputes between Idaho
Power and Private Beneficiaries was addressed during the Idaho Supreme Cour oral argument.
Counsel for the Commission confirmed that the Commission does not have authority to
adjudicate disputes between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries as to the portion of relocation
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 1 0 TARIFF - 8
44805.0001.3176880.3
costs that must be paid by Private Beneficiaries. The Idaho Supreme Cour addressed that
admission in its written opinion:
During oral argument, IPUC admitted that it could not adjudicate
the dispute between the third pary and Company. It also admitted
that if Company wanted to recover relocation costs from a third
pary, it would have to sue in court and Section 10 would not
apply.
ACHD v. IPUC, 253 P.3d at 683.
After concluding that the Commission does not have "the authority to determine whether
the relocation, in whole or in par, is for the benefit of a third pary," and after confirming that
the Commission does not have authority to adjudicate disputes between Idaho Power and Private
Beneficiaries, the Idaho Supreme Cour set aside Section 10. Id. The Idaho Supreme Cour also
set aside Section 11 because it found that the Commission did not have the authority to order
Public Road Agencies or other paries to use their best efforts to minimize the cost of relocating
utilty facilties. Id.
C. New Proposed Section 10
Idaho Power has proposed new modifications to Rule H, which Idaho Power asserts are
consistent with the Idaho Supreme Cour's recent opinion setting aside the prior versions of
Section 10 and Section 11. ACHD objects to the newly proposed Section lOon the basis that it
violates Idaho Code § 61-629 and is inconsistent with the Cour's decision. 1
1 ACHD negotiated with Idaho Power in a good faith attempt to reach an agreement on
acceptable language without success. The new Section 10 language must meet the objections
of the Idaho Supreme Court and it should not expand or deviate from the Opinion.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 9
44805.0001.176880.3
III. ANALYSIS
Idaho Code § 61-629 sets forth the procedure and standard applied when an order of the
Commission is set aside by the Idaho Supreme Cour as follows:
Upon the hearing the Supreme Cour shall enter judgment, either
affirming or setting aside or setting aside in par the order of the
commission. 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 paries, may alter or amend the order appealed from
to meet the objections of the court in the maner prescribed in
section 61-624, Idaho Code.
Id. (emphasis added).
ACHD objects to Idaho Power's Amended Motion to Accept Conforming Rule H Section
10 Tariff because the proposal does not "meet the objections of the cour," as required by Idaho
Code § 61-629. Instead, Idaho Power's proposal expressly contradicts the Idaho Supreme
Cour's opinion.
The Idaho Supreme has expressly held that the Commission does not have "authority to
order 'other paries' (including Public Road Agencies) to use their best efforts to minimize
relocation costs" or to otherwise comply with Idaho Code § 40-210. ACHD v. IPUC, 253 P.3d at
683. Despite this clear holding, Idaho Power's newly proposed language invokes Idaho Code §
40-210 in the second sentence of Paragraph 1, stating as follows:
When the Company is notified of a road improvement project pursuant to
Idaho Code § 40-210, the Company wil meet with the Public Road
Agency as provided in Idaho Code § 40-210.
See proposed Section 1 0, ~1.
The Idaho Supreme Cour has expressly held that the Commission does not have
authority under Idaho Code § 40-210 and the second sentence of the proposed first paragraph of
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 10
44805.0001.176880.3
Section 10 expressly contradicts the Idaho Supreme Cour's opinion and does not "meet the
objections of the cour," as required by Idaho Code § 61-629. Accordingly, the second sentence
of the first paragraph of Idaho Power's proposed Section 10 should be stricken.
The Idaho Supreme Cour has expressly held that "(w)hen ACHD determines that a
utilty must remove or locate its facilties that are within the public right-of-way, the Public Road
Agency is not required to bear any of the utilties cost of doing so. (cite omitted) The utilty
must proceed with the relocation. ... The utilty is required to complete the relocation
regardless of whether it is reimbursed by a third pary." ACHD v. IPUC, 253 P.3d at 680-81.
The second paragraph of Idaho Power's proposed Section 10, purorts to assume jurisdiction and
control over, and otherwise expressly limit, those instaces when a Public Road Agency can
require Idaho Power to relocate or remove its facilties and when it wil bear the cost of such
relocation as follows:
If a Public Road Agency determines that the Company's facilties
incommode the public use of any road, highway, or street, the Public Road
Agency can require the company to relocate or remove the facilties. If a
Public Road Agency determines that the Company's facilties must be
relocated or removed because they incommode the public use of the road,
highway, or street, the Company will relocate its distribution facilties
from or within the public road rights-of-way and the Company will bear
the costs of such relocation.
See proposed Section 1 0, ~2 (emphasis added).
JThe Idaho Supreme Cour has made it clear that the Commission has absolutely no
authority or jurisdiction over any Public Road Agency's decision to require the relocation or
removal of a utilty's facilties from the public rights-of-way. Yet, Idaho Power's proposed
second paragraph of Section 10 attempts to establish limits as to when a Public Road Agency
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 11
44805.0001.3176880.3
"can require" Idaho Power to relocate or remove its facilties from the public rights-of-way and
when Idaho Power wil bear the cost of such relocation. The proposed second paragraph of
Section 10 expressly contradicts the Idaho Supreme Court's opinion and does not "meet the
objections of the court," as required by Idaho Code § 61-629. Accordingly, the second
paragraph of Idaho Power's proposed Section 10 should be stricken.
The Idaho Supreme Cour has expressly held that the Commission does not have
"authority to determine whether the relocation, in whole or in par, is for the benefit of a third
pary." ACHD v. IPUC, 253 P.3d at 682-83. Despite this clear holding, Idaho Power's newly
proposed language purports to allow Idaho Power to determine whether a utilty relocation is for
the benefit of Private Beneficiaries as follows:
If the Company determines that one or more Private Beneficiaries
has, directly or indirectly though a Public Road Agency, requested
that the Company's facilities be relocated or removed for the
benefit of the Private Beneficiaries, the Company wil use
reasonable efforts to recover that portion of the total Relocation or
removal costs attibutable to the request from the Private
Beneficiaries.
See proposed Section 1 0, ~3 (emphasis added).
Idaho Power's proposed Section 10 then goes on to provide that the Commission will
adjudicate any cost allocation dispute between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries as follows:
If the Private Beneficiaries dispute the Company's calculation of
the Private Beneficiaries' cost responsibilty, 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
responsibilty as between the Company and the Private
Beneficiaries.
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 12
44805.0001.176880.3
Id. (emphasis added). This provision expressly contradicts the Idaho Supreme Cour's
conclusion, and the Commission's admission, that the Commission does not have authority to
adjudicate disputes between Idaho Power and Private Beneficiaries. See ACHD v. IPUC, 253
P.3d at 83 ("During oral argument, IPUC admitted that it could not adjudicate the dispute
between the third pary and Company. It also admitted that if Company wanted to recover
relocation costs from a third pary, it would have to sue in court and Section 10 would not
apply.").
The third paragraph of Idaho Power's proposed Section 10 does not "meet the objections
of the cour," as required by Idaho Code § 61-629. Accordingly, the third paragraph ofIdaho
Power's proposed Section 10 should be stricken.
Proposed language that is consistent with the Idaho Supreme Court's Opinion and
complies with Idaho Code § 61-629 is attched hereto as Attachment NO.1.
iv. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Idaho Power Company's Amended Motion to Accept
Conforming Rule H Section 10 Tarff should be denied.
Jet!DATED THIS ~ ~ of January, 2012.
HAWLEY TROXELL ENNIS & HAWLEY LLP
By
ADA COUNTY HIGHWA Y DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 13
44805.0001.3176880.3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE~
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on thi~4r of Januar, 2012, I caused to be served a true
copy of the foregoing ADA COUNTY HrdHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF by the method indicated below, and addressed
to each of the following:
Commission Staff
Weldon B. Stutzman
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 Association of Canyon County
Highway Districts
Matthew A. Johnson
Davis F. VanderVelde
WHITE PETERSON GIGRA Y ROSSMAN NYE &
NICHOLS, P.A.
5700 East Franlin Road, Suite 200
Nampa, Idaho 83687
The Kroger Co.
Michael L. Kurz
Kur J. Boehm
BOEHM, KURTZ & LOWRY
36 East Seventh Street, Suite 1510
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
~ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
o Hand Delivered
o Overnight Mail
DE-mail: we1don.stutzan(gpuc.idaho.gov
o Telecupy
~ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
o Hand Delivered
o Overnight Mail
DE-mail: mcc(ggivenspursley.com
o Telecopy
~ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
o Hand Delivered
o Overnight Mail
DE-mail: mjohnson(gwhitepeterson.com
dvanderve1de(gwhitepeterson.com
o Telecopy
l8 U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
o Hand Delivered
o Overnight Mail
DE-mail: mkurt(gBKLlawfrm.com
kboehm(gBKLlawfrm.com
o Telecopy
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 14
44805.0001.3176880.3
Kevin Higgins
ENERGY STRATEGIES, LLC
215 South State Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
~ U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
o Hand Delivered
o Overnight Mail
DE-mail: khiggins(genergystrat.com
o Telecopy
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO ACCEPT
CONFORMING RULE H SECTION 10 TARIFF - 15
44805.0001.176880.3
Idaho Power Company First Revised Sheet No. H-14
Cancels
Original Sheet No. H-14 - H-15I.P.U.C. No. 29. Tariff No. 101
RULEH
NEW SERVICE ATIACHMENTS
AND DISTRIBUTION LINE
INSTALLATIONS OR
ALTERATIONS
(Continued)
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). At the request of a
Public Road Agency, the Company wil relocate its distribution facilities from or within the public
rights-of-way and the company wil bear the costs of such relocation.
11. Existing Agreements
This rule shall not cancel existing agreements, including refund provisions, between the
Company and previous Applicants, or Additional Applicants. All Applications will be governed
and administered under the rule or schedule in effect at the time the Application was received
and dated by the Company.
IDAHO
Issued - January 11, 2012
Effective -
Issued by IDAHO POWER COMPANY
Gregory W. Said, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
1221 West Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho