20091109Request for Funding.pdf

Michael C. Creamer, ISB #4030
Conley E. Ward, ISB # 1683
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 W. Banock St.
Post Offce Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 208-388-1300
10495-C703799 JDO
RECEIVED
2U09 NOV -9 PM 3: 27
IOi\HO PUßLiC
UTILITIES COMMiSSION
Attorneys for Interenors The Building Contrctors
Association of Southwester Idaho
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. IPC-E-08-22
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
BUILDING CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION OF
SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S
REQUEST FOR INERVENOR
FUNDING
The Building Contractors Association of Southwester Idaho ('Building Contractors"),
by and though its attorneys of record, Givens Puley LLP, and pursuat to Idaho Code
§61-617 A and IDAP A 31.01.01.161 - 165, respectfuly makes application to the Idaho Public
Utilities Commssion ("Commission") for interenor fuding in the above-captioned matter.
This application is timely, as it is made within fouree days of the date of filing of the last brief
in ths matter, which was October 27, 200.
REQUEST FOR INERVENOR FUING
1. A sumar and itemzed statements of the Building Contrctors' legal and
consultant expenses for which it seeks recover is attached as Attchment A.
BUILING CONTRACTORS ASIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUDING - Page 1
2. The Building Contractors' Developer's Council Subcommittee and staffwere
actively involved with legal counsel and Dr. Richard Slaughter in evaluating Idaho Power
Company's ("Company") proposed changes to its line extension taff, and the economic impacts
those changes would have on both the Building Contrctors' member and the public in
southwest Idaho. Although this case involved only one set of tarffs, the factual and policy
issues raised were complex and important. Orginally this matter was deeed by the paries and
the Commission as appropriate for decision on modified procedure upon submission of
comments responding to the Company's application and direct testimony. Order 30719. As later
became apparent, however, the technical and legal issues related to the Company's requested
amendments, as they affected the Buildig Contractors' members and members' customer and
the Company, ultimately waranted a technical hearng and additional briefing by the Company
and Interenors. Order 30883.
Consistently thoughout this proceeding, Building Contrctors sought findings and
conclusions by the Commission that new customers were entitled to a level of per-customer
Company investment in distrbution facilities on a par with existing customer; which, based on
calculated embedded costs, was approximately $1,232 pe customer. In comparson, although
Staff computed the $1,232 embedded cost amount, it did not oppose the per-transformer charge
serng as the sole Company investment.
3. Because of his familiarty with Idaho Power's rate strcture generally and its line
extension tarff specifically, having testified before the Commission in Case No. IPC- E-95-18,
Dr. Richard Slaughter was retained as the Building Contrctors' consultant and exper witness in
support of the Building Contrctors' written comments and to provide testimony to and before
the Commission. Dr. Slaughter's experence and testimony sered to establish an historical and
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FORINTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 2
factual foundation concerng the Company's existing Rule H Tarff its embedded distrbution
costs, and the actual sources of increasing costs of serice to the Company. His testimony also
provided a counterbalancing crtique of the Company's and Staffs asserons on these important
issues.
Dr. Slaughter presented reasonable and factually supported opinions in rebuttal of the
Compay's asseron that line extensions costs to see new customer were a soure of upward
pressure on rates that would be alleviated by approval of the Company's propose tarff
amendments. Dr. Slaughter also provided relevant testimony addressing the potential effects of
the propose tarff amendments on energy demand, use and achievabilty of the Commission's
conseration goals, which are perinent to the Commission's considertion of whether the tarff
amendments would be adver to the public interest. Beyond merely crticizing the proposed
tarff Dr. Slaughter offered reasnable alteratives for the Commission's considertion under
alterative allowance/refud and strct allowance approaches.
Dr. Slaughter challenge the Staffs calculations of the Company's proposed investment
in distrbution facilities. He presented evidence indicatig that the proposed investment to sere
new reidential customers-approved by Staff-falls far short of the Company's investment to
serve existing residential customer for all but the smallest new developments. Dr. Slaughter
also distinguished the difference betwee inflation and growth as they affect Company costs.
The Building Contrctors' comments and testimony emphasized an issue of public policy
affecting the general boy of electrc consumer-namely the extent to which growth does or
ought to pay for itself though electrc rates generally and thugh line extension charges
speifically. Building Contractors urged the Commssion to look beyond the phrase "grwt
should pay for itself," to inquire into the real causes of increased costs, and to crtically evaluate
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 3
the extent to which new customers are being asked to pay more than existing customers, and
whether such a policy encourages existing customers to consume more energy rather than
conserve it. No other pary, including Staff addressed these issues squarely.
The Commission's Order 30883 granting in par Building Contactors' request for
reconsideration implicitly, if not explicitly, recognzed that Building Contrctors had identified
importt issues that waranted fuer testimony and briefig by the pares and considertion
by the Commission.
Based on the foregoing, Building Contractors have materally contrbuted to this
proceeing and the Comission's consideration of the merts of the Company's tarff
amendment application.
4. The Building Contrctors' expenses and costs incurred in this case, as
summarzed in Exhbit A, total $60,965.25.1 This includes $40,017.50 for legal fee (166.3
hour), $19,926.66 for consultant fees (113.12 hours) and $1,021.09 in copy charges. Ofthis
total, $28,386.35 in legal expenses and costs and consultant expenses and costs were incured in
the initial proceeings, and the balance of $32,578.90 have subsequently bee incurred in
connection with seeking and obtaining reconsideration, prepartion of testimony, preparng for
and parcipating in the technical hearng, and preparation of a post-hearng brief.
These expenses all were reasonable and necessary. They include expenses incured to
retreve and review Commission files regarding the Company's last Rule H tarff revision case
that had been moved to the State Archives. They also include time and expene reviewing
comments, testimony and documents submitted by other paries, the draftng of Building
Contractors' own testimony, comments, peitions and briefs, request for reconsideration,
Building Contractors recognzes tht Idaho Code § 6 I -6 I 7 A limits the amount awardable as intervenor
funding to $25,000.
BUILING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FORINTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 4
preparation for and paricipation in the October 20th technical hearng, and prearation of
Building Contractors' post-hearng brief.
5. Building Contactors is a non-profit association that relies on voluntar
memberhip and voluntar contrbutions to fud its opetions and promote the interests of its
member builder, contrctors and developer. All of the Building Contrctors' opeations
expenses, including building, employee, membe mailngs and parcipation in lega or
administrtive proceedings such as ths case, are paid from these voluntar contrbutions.
The costs and expenses sumarzed in Attachment A have be a signficant financial
burden for Buildig Contrctors. Curently, voluntar contrbutions have dropped signficantly
due to the strggling economy generly and the depressed local real estate sector specifically.
Because of the reductions in Building Contrctors' income, it recently has had to impose
signficant budget cuts and mandatory days off for its staff Building Contrors continues to
solicit member contrbutions to cover its general operating costs and the costs of its interention
and active parcipation in this proceeding.
The Commission has previously recognized Building Contractors as eligible for
interenor fuding in Case No. IPC-E-95- i 8 (involving a Rule H Tarff amendment), where the
Building Contractors incued $14,250.00 in legal fees and $12,207.50 in consultant fees. There
the Commission authorized interenor fuding in the maximum statutory amount of $25,00
payable from rates charged to the class that it deeed was priarly benefittednamely, lots
within subdivisions that require line extensions. Case No. IPC-E-95-18, Order No. 26780 at 19
(a copy of Order 26780 as obtained from the Commission's online Order Archive is attached as
Attchment B).
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASCIATION OF SOUTSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 5
Building Contractors submits that its appearance in ths case was for the benefit of
developer and owner of lots withn subdivisions reuing line extenions, and that an
appropriate mechanism exists to provide for the Company's recover of an interenor fuding
award to the Building Contractors, as has previously been implemented by the Company
pursuant to the Commssion's directive in Order26780.
CONCLUSION
The expenses that Building Contractors have incurred are reasonable given its substantial
effort and participation in ths proceeing. These expenses were incurd to advance policies
that benefit Building Contrctors' members and the public at large. Building Contrctors have
materally contrbuted to the decision in this case and to the public debate about issues of
population growth and energy costs and the appropriate allocation of those costs as between new
customers and the Company's existing ratepayer. Its position differed materally from that of
any other par and from the Staffs position, and raised issues of concer to the general body of
ratepayers.
Parcipation in this case has been, and continues to be, a financial hardship for Building
Contractors. Building Contractors respectfully request that the Commission exercise its
discretion to accept and grant ths request finding that Building Contractors is entitled to
interenor fuding in the maxum amount peritted by law, to be paid from the class of
customers primarily affected and benefitted-namely, lots within subdivisions that require line
extensions. Inasmuch as Idaho Code §61-6 i 7 A allows this cost to be a business expense in the
Company's next rate case, Building Contractors respectfully submits that granting this request is
not prejudicial to the Company.
BUIDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 6
DATED this 9th day of November, 2009.
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
ichael C. Creamer
Attorneys for Intervenor The Building
Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho
BUILING CONTRCTORS ASSOIATION OF SOUTSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FORINTERVENOR FUNDING-Page 7
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF EXENSE INCURRED BY
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Of SOUTHWESTERN IDAH
IN CASE NO. IPC.E-0.22
1 Legl Fees
Michael C. Creamer (Parner)
Elizbeth M. Ooick (Associate)
Justin M. Frein (Associate)
Tami Kruger (Paral)
Subtotals
Hours
152.0
5.5
3.0
5.8
166.3
$38,000.00
$ 852.50
$ 585.00
$ 58.00
$40,017.50
Costs:
Copies $ 1.021.09
Totl Work and Costs
2 Cosultat Richard Slaughter 113.12
$41,038.59
$19.926.66
TOTAL FEES AND EXPENSES:$60,965.25
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 8
Building Contractors AAlation of Soutbwntem Idaho / Line Extensio Tarif ( 1045/1 )
Da 10 TyP Hors Rate Amoun Deption
211209 MCC Fee 0.50 25.00 125.0 Melig will J. Ria and J. Kunz.
2110à09 MC Fee 2,30 250.00 575.00 Re.. lP pladin; researc prr tarf pree an teti re an eda nolîce of
slJwtlo oI_ei.
21111209 MCC Fee 4.40 250.0 1,100.00 Conlnu re of IPU orders OI pr IP tanlf revisis; re_ st an part!e Ìf
p'iOr prooelnS; fo docu 10 J. Kunz; COiiíf Olla ci fis OI lie exlØsiosfn st arves: tile noic of suslìlli of 00.
211112 TLK FGI J.6O 100.0 JaG.OO Com.8lçe wi M. er teg &,"; trwl iom Idaho Slte Hl1D1 ~y: t$
fils; obai cciíe of sti; oof/le wi i. Ctllet cal 10 R HOse (arst).
2/121 MCC m 4.00 25.00 1.000.00 Review LPC dome pie lo and attend mell wi elnl
21121 Tl Fee 1.10 100.00 100,00 TialOlfrom Idah Hìslcal SOet fi I$vi$W 40_1$.
2/1Jl MCC m 0.10 25.00 115.0 Review an f_rd 1!' sopplol discoer responses; tepha cal to Kr couel;
le caie C. War.
211712 MCC ~0.40 25,0(100.00 IÑI r"'ew of dlse repose fro 1P; ~ With J. Kui re Arn.2/18100 MC i=1.60 25.00 315.00 Tel 00er wi K. Sasser: teona ooen wi C, Ward: iela conler
will J. Kunz; ta.,ne confell wih R. SI..; foi (fi.ls; la cOlerne
will R. Slaught.
2/19/ MCC Fee VIO 25,00 600.00 Pnre fOt !Mti and meet wi R. S1aughler k, ou i$~lanalis to N$ 10 lP lI
flng.2f MC Fee 0.30 250,00 75.00 Review IPUCLIP docmesfdÎ ffOlseS.214J MC Fee O.a 250.00 200.00 Reew eamomlc re: COIl wi R. sii. OQnc wit J. Ku2I MC Fee 1.10 25000 275.00 Tele COnf~l\ wi R. SlIe coo prearlion 01 requ far pruc; fur1fllI of NA9Cic res; r~ie $\ of peng lesl
2I12 MCC Fee 3,60 250.00 900.00 T ei.. coler wi R. S11e dra requeSlfOt prUCio; lete eole wi t.
Notr. att lo 1P; -ie coer wi K. Sasser allP; tele co"'eWi!l inen coo..el; draf and ii reqsl for einstl 01 ti.3I00 MC Fee OAO 25000 100.00 Reew ¡PUC website ofice co ra ia ag pump po on ii _nsn twil.
31101209 MC Fe 0.50 250.00 125.00 Rlew AC cont: revi sl decision 1'; llieplne oo wilh K. &; drcospcl to J. Kl and R. Slate re: exte of cont pe,3l MC Fe 0.50 250.00 125.0 Reew and foi id Powil COmp tens to W41' COlllrac1O AsialiGsReest fo Prdu of Do.311J2 I.MO Fee 1.10 155.00 110.50 ~eanih IdlJ Po Oa$ ning AI 25h fi.Ji1J2 MC Fe 0.40 250.00 100J)(Corrnden wî R Slater; cooe leae terkl Po CoanyG\II T.ail
Fir,4I l.Fee 1.3 155.00 201.50 Co rerchi kfll Pt case re Au 25t1 h.4I MC Fe 3.li 25.00 950.00 Telepne cofe wi R. $lr; I$"ie plead and discove responce.4J l.Fe 0.60 155.00 93.00 Meet with U, Creamer to diacu relWh I$su; contue I'eang låa/ Po easerey.li Ayust 25 II...oI MC Fee 2.00 250.00 700.00 Meat wil R. Slaugter; ra LPC OTer.4~ I.Fe 2.50 155.00 33.50 Re_ ion clms file at ih cortse lo cl ~ Idho Po. and August 25 we:
meet with iv Crea to di$: i: reea sum.4100 MC Fee 0.20 25.00 50.00 Telee cor- wi R. Slugte.
4I10J00 MC Faa 1.0 250.00 275.00 Reew ancllíl R. Slauglll 11Iti iilehone coen with R. Slll 100rd holl
pr irlon3Úon to R. Slugte.411/200 MC Fee 6.00 250.00 1,500.0 Reew anc edit dtft têS.
If13100 MC Fee 3,90 250.00 915.00 Telepe eo-. wi R. Slugte f' -'se ley; ..in with R. Slaier
telone cofe wil C. War; fuit reie of SIllelt1l.
4114100 MC Fe 0.40 250.00 100.00 Rev ple
4I6J MC Fee 2.70 250.00 675.0 Re all lo drft telÍl; coordiiitl fí same.
41712 MCC Fee 680 250.00 1.100.00 R..~ all ii~ Slaur tini: drft comes :ippsmmg same; 1'_
hihwy dl. convent.4I MCC Fe 0.50 250.00 125.00 Reie all foiwrd IlA and Highway Dilrs' coments reie IPU docl shéel411J2 MC Fee 0,80 25000 200.00 Re9W ¡PUC staf comme "'~ cal II R. Slau.4/6J MC FM 0.40 25.00 100.00 Telep coferce wit R. Slaug19r.4/7l2 MC Fe 0.40 250.00 100.0 Re an mp to code t9 iesi to $taff _1$.4~ MC Fee 0,90 250.00 225.0 Rev_ and torwll dtft coants; kiphe cofei witl R. Slaugh be\l drrespo.
4l00 MC Fee 3.90 25.00 915.00 Reiew and edit dt coonts; folW to C. War ;id R Slt; teon co wit R.
Slaugte.
51112 MC Fee 0,80 zr.OO 20.0 Reiew ¡?Co rey coMent an fo to clint anclO R. Slgh",r.5/112 MC Fe 0.30 250.00 75.0 Reie all ftRd to coOl fn J. Ku Iele¡ion caito K sasse at lP (tw).
5119100 MC Fee 0.30 250.00 75.00 Telepe cofece wil R. SlaUlte.5t MC Fe 0.'0 250.00 100.00 Re R. Slug COde71200 MC FIN 0.50 250,00 125.00 R/lie ordr.1I0i MC Fe 4.00 25.00 1.00,00 Dn '$que fo jnl_ fInd7/3/ MC Fe 1.10 25.00 275,00 Tel cofeen wih J. Ku te co wit L Noai at idah Pc Co.;
iial an il reest /o ~ flndln; IflephOl col\no wt K Sa allP re
same.714100 MC Fe 0.40 250.00 100,00 Tele coleretco wit R. ~; cod will J. Kun7/15/00 MC Fe 2,40 25.00 6000 Prep_lo ai attnd rnee Wi R SIaer inil$le Of IPUC Il II dlsona í_:
loe klo SI Co desions re sam,7/16J MC Fe 6,60 250,00 1.650.00 Reie lie aii taff docke tøhOn.e conf wi R. Slhtr: tephe oo
wi J. Kuz.7117100 MC Fee 1.50 250.00 375.00 Meal wil R. Slaught comispon will R. SI and J. Ku7l200 MC F~5.80 250.00 1.450,00 Rll Slte noté; tèf~e coer wih R. Ste __ng wih Bu ContracaAsillin: lßtl confence wil C. Ward; ti dt1I pe fo ÆCOM
71212 MC Fe 6.5 250.00 1.25,00 Ora petl fo r9C.7~2 MC Fe 6.20 250.00 1.560.00 COnÌlue dtaffg peit fo r&eaion: file YMø; -i peíl lor reerlin l~ed by
nlgy dI; ta8lho coce wi M. JOon. cofl fo ni dist.
7~2 MC Fee 0.2 250.00 50,00 ~ and to Iltiy c1Slt llIiAs 10. remiad7~2 MC Fee 0.50 250.00 125.00 Prelím .e.ie of 1PC respo to tl for _airat.7/320 IIC Fe 0.20 2Sö.00 5liOO Funh"r r..ie of IPC 'lte.
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUDING - Page 9
6I09 MeC Fee 0.30 250.00 15.00 Coisp wih diem re reconsidenti of IPUC cr...8"21 MeG F.0.00 260.00 125.00 Re IPU case fie on wøe 10 dQÌl ilal\ of peoilng petl tene confernce
wi K. Sas""r at !P; io sla upte io cliets.8119109 MeC Fee 0.90 25.00 22.00 Re an Ioiwar !PC ~ on iwidrati.1l09 MeC Fee 0.40 25.00 100.00 T ei~ confnc wilb R. SluØ'er: leepll call io e. Ward re IP _side orer.
8121/20 MeC Fee 0.00 250.00 200.0 COon with R. SlauQhte ben cullo of teallmy and key øoôna re "alowMces' v.
~'"vet" leepll cX8fe wl S. Sper, COllel l' ACHO r. rectl foiw
correøonde re same to J. Kunz
814120 Mee Fee 1.00 25.00 250.00 Telne oooiereno wilt R. Slaughie; tehon conference with e. Ward; iølepl coleWlll J. Kuii te cortnco wit R. Slaugti.812/2009 MCe Fee 0.40 25.00 100.0 Comspcnd wilh R. Slle.
812712009 Mee F9I 1.50 aw.OO 375.0 Reviltw dlfl Slagi lemanv; Ol.sp Wl AC lIelng wilt R. siaie.
81281209 MeC Fee 0.10 250.00 25.00 Telehone confrece will R. $Iaughle; telene coreco wil S. Spear al ACO.
81311209 MOC Fee 5.50 250-0 1,37s,O OraMit R. $l¡ile \Gmollon rering; lIøhone cofl with R. Slaughfr.
9111209 MCe Fee 2.00 250.00 500.00 Review PUC otd: aiied meng wil M. Warle & eosel lo Highy Di$lr1s; telEphonacoerenc Wl R. Slglter.9J120g MOe Fee 3.20 25.00 800.00 Telehone ooernc wí R. Slaughte re an forward draft tetimony on recsiderati 10Dr. Slghte and 10 eø.
90319 MOC Ñ!O.JO 250.00 75.0 CoIt fw _ie an edill of lestmony.9I9 MO Fee 0.30 25.00 75.00 Rev and fo IPO decian t9 ie for inKVenr fun9/10J09 MeC Foe 2.0 250.00 55.00 Con: ri of R. Slte I$tiny.
9/111209 MOC Fe 4,70 25.00 1,175.00 Rnall an fife 8C ley on runsidørllon lnll nM of ACHD brifig.
9/1712009 MCC Foe 0,20 250.0 50.00 Re and fai ¡PUC no 01 ol'llumen an leenic heatg.
90181009 MCC Fe 0.5 250.00 125.00 Cordnate hei appeaneduling; t.ioo conferce with L Nordlr telephoconElen will R. Siau.91212009 MC Fee 0:70 250.00 175,00 Re ll forrcllPCo bref repondin 10 highway distc on reOlsiderli: forw sae to
clnt and R. Slhlr far re.
9/8100 MCC Fe"0.00 25.00 225.00 Re ¡!' fl$pOl'l llst and Ioiwailo d;"nl: revie Slaughte tæli emil
eichan wilh R. S1uglter re IPeo argumen.10/ MC F!l 0.40 25.00 100.00 Telephne conerC6 wil S. Sø"arc wi AC t1lehone eonfeet with R. Slaugr; re1l
ACHD moio to sle: ro motn io clnt an R. Staughlr.10112 Me F!l 1.40 250.00 3500 Re plding, tetimony anc Ol grting reeonSidOti in ¡latn for meet wi R.
Slauhter to ouin Slaugh dire !lty on Alsideron.101OO MO Fee 0.10 250.00 2500 Ooollna19 meetng wilb R. Slaugr.101 MC Fee 3.50 250.00 675.00 Cont¡/1uh'9 rev of Pieadngs an leslimony: mMlin wi R. Slii¡¡ter io pr fo TechnicHell10J31 JMF Fee 3.00 195.00 58.00 Prpaon lo an atdari at 01' aiumenl; foø co_lins wi M. Cramr an MikeWar
10J9t00 MCC Fee 9.00 25.00 2.250.00 Re pre41e tetiny an cots; prare quliorong for lPeo wilne; pr
Slatent of p0 tee oo wi R, ~ie re lSlJany and re crossexrnti.
lW20l9 MOC Fee 5.00 25.00 1.50.00 Pre lo ano Illendr1 in IPUC Teehni Hearg an reerati re lin exlnans,
1W20100 TI Fee 0.40 100.00 40.00 Prre dOum to hearÎlg.10131009 MO Felt 0.20 25(1-00 50.00 Cconnate wi C. SU Ie dreft trnscript; review sa: lelell.. conferce wit C, Buc re
painti illel in dra lInscrpt101619 MCC Fee 4.90 250.00 1.225.00 orlt po.ii_1n ll: teeph& coreC6 wil R. Slate re ¡l05Hiear brng ísues and
argumet
10/7129 MCC Fee 5.00 250.00 1.250.00 Finze an fi poseati bri wi !pUC an se an parls.TotF9_166.30 $40.17.0
BUIING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 10
Rk6ãi Slaughter Asciate
9ó Hinlsu Blvd
~,ldaoo l\
Invoice
Mr. Joe Kutz
BCASWl
6206 N DiscoveryWay, Sute A
Bòíse,lD 83713
TIme bile at $175 pe horCaw læm
tPCE-æ22 (RuI!l..t!l
2/1612009 Revie filings and pror testimony
211712009 Review lPea propoal
211 712009 Meeting with BCAWJ
2118/2009 Company testimony
2.19/2009 Preøarefor meeting M. Creamerl meetin
2/19/2009 T. Jones, data on Dìs. cos; R. Stet~ng
211 91200 IPea worlpers
212012009 Protion lel,ests
2120/2009 Indation of contributon to rate base
2121/2009 Staffproc:eton reests
2/23/2009 Data for refud indeation; prelimary scping of argument
212512009 Meetng with Ric Sterling; plan production reue~t
21Z612009 Pruction reqest
212:712009 Conf. on pruction n!1,8St, M. Creamer; edit rest
212:712009 Info rest, Joe Kunz
3/1012009 ACI- Comments
3/11/2009 Line e~tension contrats
3/12/2009 Line extension contracts
3/17/2009 Drft comts
3120/2009 rpco Pro. Reqest reponse - staff
3123/2009 IPCO Pro. reu&5t. respose. IBC
3123/2009 Diitize IPeò spradheet
3/27/2009 Comnts draft
3/3012009 IPeo cost data
3/31/2009 Cost alocatio IP'E-08' 1 0
3/31/2009 Cosult on IPC.£.08.1 0; D. Readin
4/1/200 Write cots
412/200 Infltion se
413/2009 Confeenc wI M. Creaeer
414/2009 Drft tesimony
4/612009 Testimo
4110/200 Testimo
RSA, Inc.
io Rsl 22
m 2t 345.%3email: ridwd~li.eu
IlIN: 82.0462
TIme
2:00
1:12
1:15
4:18
2:48
1:12
0~42
1:06
1:00
1:00
2:00
1:36
1:24
0:480:-
0:18
0:42
0:48
0:32
0:24
0:36
0:30
0:42
2:42
1:54
1:30
1:00
0:18
2:$7
0:35
4:34
2:30
May 20. 200
Fee
350.00
210.00
218.75
752.50
490.00
210.00
122.50
192.50
175.00
175.00
350.00
280.00
245.00
140.00
17.50
52.50
122.50
140.00
93.33
70.00
105.00
87.50
122.50
472.50
332.50
262.50
175.00
SZ.s
516.25
102.08
799.17
437.50
BUIDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 11
4/1 3/2009 Tesimony edits/additon; meet wI Cream
4/14/2009 Edits; call to IPUC
4/15/2009 Edits and chft fil to GP
4/1612009 Proof testimony and exhibits
4fT 712009 Final change Mike Creame
412412009 Staff comments
4126/Z009 Review staff again for err; call M. Cremer
412712009 Draft rense to staff
4/30LZ009 Reisions to cometio; confernce wíh !'. Creamer
5/19/2009 IPe reply commets
5/1912009 Review IPCo rely commnts
5/2012009 Email on IPCo comment
Toei
Plea remit
3:48
2:12
3:24
2:18
1:00
1:36
0:36
4:18
0:48
0:06
0:25
0:30
665.00
385.00
595.00
402.50
175.00
280.00
105.00
752.50
140.00
17.50
72.9Z
ole
65:30 $11.46.50
$11,46250
BUILING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 12
Richd Slaghter Assotes
907 Haon Blvd
Boie, Id 8302
Invoice
!vIc. Joe Kun
BCASWI
6206 N Dìovei Way, Suite A
Boise, ID 83713
Time bi at 5175 pe horDaæ tt~
iPC-E-Q8-22 (RUle Hl
711 5/200 Re data for appe
711612oo9 Den sprevew; M. Creaer
7/1712009 M. Cream; draf technial iss
7/21/2009 Review apal petn
7/2212009 Rev of petiion an chrt; telepho metis Mie Crea
Tota
Pl rem
RSA, Inc.
20S 8512
Pax20S 34963em ii~.:
EI: 82-026
Augt 20, 200
nne Fe
0:30
2:32
3:48
3:30
1:20
$87.50
$443.33
$665.00
$612.50
$233.33
$2041.6611:40
$2,041.66
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 13
Ricl Slaughter Assotes
9I Haa Blv
&i1d 8370
RSA, Inc.
20 &512
Pax20 3496em~coEI: 82-0
In'l'"ice
Mr. JoeKun
BCASWI
6206 N Disver Way, Suite A
Bois, IDIB113 Octob 21, 2009
TIme bi at $175 pe homDate It
IPC-E..22 (Rule H)
812012009 Rev Commissin orde
81241200 Ben draft of tesmoy
812512009 Write testimony
8/26/l00 Review an edt
8/27/l00 Metin; M. Creamer
8/31/2009 Testmony qutions, Creamer
9/1/Z00star Crame chang
9/21200 Crear revedts; ¡Peo FERC data
9/41200 Crear commnts on testimony rens
9/10/l00 Creamr revsions for fiing
9/111200 Conference and fina revew for fiing
91281200 sad rev
10/91200 Prep for conf., cont. wI M. Creame
10113/2009 PU Hearing on road agnc
10/1 91200 Prepe for hearing
1012012009 PU Hearng
1 01261200 Creamr telephone; Notes for tlnal briefing
10127/2009 Rellew Creame brief; conference
Total
TIme Fee
0:45
2:00
4:06
2:06
1:12
0:36
0:12
3:00
1:48
1:42
0:3
0:5
4:12
2:45
4:06
4:00
1:30
1:12
36:42
$131.25
$350.00
$717.50
$367.50
$210.00
$105.00
$35.00
$525.00
$315.00
$297.50
$105.00
$157.50
$735.00
$481.25
$717.50
$700.00
$262.50
$210.00
$6,42.50
Pl remit $6,422.50
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 14
ATTACHMENT B
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
APPROVAL OF NEW TARFF PROVISIONS RELATING TO NEW SERVICE
ATTACHMENTS AND DISTRIBUTION LINE INSTALLMENTS OR ALTERATIONS.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-95-18
ORDER NO. 26780
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
BUILDING CONTRACfORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWSTERN IDAHO.S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 15
i. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1
II. IDAHO POWER'S PROPOSAL 3
III. IMPACT OF SUPREME COURT DECISION ON APPLICATION 6
IV. ISSUES RAISED BY APPLICATION 11
A. Motion to Reopen the Record 11
B. Averge Unit Costs v. Work Order Costs 12
C. Allowances 14
D. Refud Policy 16
E. Engineerng Charge & General Overhead 17
F. Omitted Sectons and Serice Attachment Charge 18
V. INTERVENORFUNDING 19
VI. ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21
ORDER 21
(Footer A:
ORDER NO. 26780 -i-)
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
APPROVAL OF NEW TARIFF PROVISIONS RELATING TO NEW SERVICE
ATTACHMENTS AND DISTRIBUTION LINE INSTALLMENTS OR ALTERATIONS.
)
)
)
)
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FORINTERVENOR FUNDING-Page 16
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-95-18
ORDER NO. 26780
INODUCTION
Idaho Power Company fied an Application for approval of modifications to its Tarff No. 101,
Rule H, providing for charges for the constrction of distrbution line instalations or altertions.
Idaho Power proposes to shift more of the cost of new serce attachments and distrbution line
installations or altertions from the system revenue requirement to new customers requesting the
constrction. The Commission held several hearngs in this matter in Boise and Pocatello,
Idaho, as well as post hearng briefing. In this Order we conclude that Idaho Power's
Application is not precluded by the Supreme Cour decsion in Boise Water, infra. We grt
Idaho Power's Application for modification to its Rule H Tarff. Specifically, we approve the
change from average unit cost to work order costs, approve a slight change to the allowances,
modify the refund policy, approve changes to the engineerng charge and overhead fees and
address other miscellaneous provisions of the tarff We furter grant the Building Contrctor's
motion for interenor fuding.
I. PROCEDURA HISTORY
On December 8, 1995, Idaho Power filed an Application for approval of modifications to its
Tarff No. 101, Rule H. Idaho Power proposes to shift more of the cost of new serice
attachments and distrbution line installations or alterations from the system revenue requirement
to the new customer or customer creating the expenditues by requirig contrbutions for new
service attachments and/or distrbution line installations or altertions. On Januar 3, 1996, the
Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Workshop.
At the request of the applicant, Commission Staff conducted sever workshops with
representatives of Idaho Power and membe of the public to discuss the Application and
alterative proposals. Workshops were held on Janua 23, Febru 15, and Marh 19, 1996 in
Boise, Idaho and on March 26, 1996 in Pocatello, Idaho.
The following paries were designated as interenors to ths case: Idaho Buildig Contrctors
Association (Building Contractors) represented by Dean J. Miler, Esq.; Amercan Hertage, Inc.
represented by Douglas Balfour, Esq.; Life Style Homes and Building Contrctors of Southeast
Idaho represented by Dars Ells; Mountain par Estates represented by Cynthia Ells; and
Industral Customer of Idaho Power represented by Peter Richardson, Esq. The petitioner, Idaho
Power, was represented by Lar Ripley, Esq. and the Commission Staffwas reresented by
Susan E. Hamlin, Esq.
BUIDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 17
On Febru 12, 1996, the Building Contractors fied a Motion with the Commission to dismiss
the Application fied by Idaho Power. The Building Contractors argued that the Application was
a collateral attack upon and was precluded by Commssion Order No. 26216. Among other
things, Order No. 26216 authorized a rate moratorium and provided that base rates could not be
changed prior to January 1, 2000, subject to cern exceptions. On March 5, 1996, the
Commssion conducted an oral argument on the Motion. The Commssion issued Order No.
26364 on March 13, 1996, denying the Building Contractors' Motion to Dismiss on the grounds
that the proposed line extension fees are not base rates, and therefore, the proposed changes to
the line extension tarff are not precluded by Order No. 26216.
On April 4, 1996, the Commission issued Notice of Scheduling and Notice of Hearings. Due to
a substantial revision in the original Application, the Commission conducted bifucated technical
hearngs. During the first hearng on June 25, 1996, Idaho Power presented its revised position
in the form of testimony, and Interenors and Staff had an opportnity to cross-examine the
Company's witnesses. Durng the second hearg held on Augut 6, Staffand Building
Contractors presented testimony and all pares had an opportty to present rebuttal testimony.
The Commission also conducted public hearngs on this matter on July 11, 1996 in Pocatello,
Idaho, and on August 6, 1996 in Boise, Idaho.
On July 19, 1996, the Commission issued Order No. 26522 scheduling post hearng briefings in
this case. All paries of record were invited to file post hearng briefings addressing the issue
raised by the Supreme Cour decision in Building Contractors Association v. ¡PUC and Boise
Water Corporation, 128 Idaho 534, 916 P.2d 1259 (1996). Post hearng briefs were due
September 5, 1996, and responsive briefs were due September 12, 1996. Idaho Power, the
Commission Staff and the Building Contractors fied post hearng briefs addressing the issue
raised by the Commission.
On September 12, 1996, the Building Contractors fied a Petition for Interenor Funding. On
September 26, 1996, Idaho Power fied a response to the Building Contrctors' Petition.
On September 30, 1996, Idaho Power filed a Motion to reopen the record for receipt of an
Affdavit to correct an eror the Company had discovered in the proposed line extension
allowance for thee phase serice to Schedule 7, Schedule 9 and Schedule 24 customers. On
October 3, 1996, Staffresponded to Idaho Power Company's Motion to Reopen the Record and
indicated that it agreed with augmentation of the record by the affidavit fied by the Company.
No other pares fied a response to Idao Power Company's Motion.
II. IDAHO POWER'S PROPOSAL
Idaho Power's Application for approval of modifications to its Tarff No. 101, Rule H, proposes
to increase the percentage of the cost of new serce attachments and distrbution line
instalations or alterations paid by the new customer(s) requesting the construction. The
Company's revisions to its line extension policy affect only new distrbution facilities sering
new customers. The Company suggests that the costs. of facilties built specìfically for the
benefit of specific customers should be the responsibilty of those customers and should not be
passed along to other customer in the system revenue requirement. Tr. at 6. The Company also
BUIDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING-Page 18
proposes that transmission, substation, and genertion costs be viewed as system-related rather
than customer-specific. Tr. at 7. The Company's proposed changes to its Rule H tarff
therefore, addresses only new distrbution facilties required to sere only the new customer.
The Company sumarzes the major changes to the Ru1e H tarff as follows:
1. Provide allowances for terinal facilities, but not line extenions.
2. Use work order cost estimates rather than average unit costs.
3. Create separte charges for serce attachments (not refudable), line installations
(refudable), and vested interests (refudable).
4. Create miscellaneous, nonrefudable charges.
5. Revise the line installation methodology for subdivisions.
6. Create a new refud methodology.
Tr. at 7-8.
The Company asser that it filed its application for approval of these new tarff charges
(hereafter "line extension charges") because "the anticipated revenues from the new customer are
not suffcient to cover the costs of new distrbution facilties." Tr. at 6, lines 13-15. Idaho
Power explains that when it absorbs costs associated with constrcting new distrbution facilities,
the end result is upward pressure on all customers' rates through an incrased overall revenue
requirement. The Company posits that the current constrction allowances allow too much of
the cost of new distrbution facilties to be shifted to other customer who do not utilize the
facilties that generted those costs. Tr. at 6.
The fees that the Company has proposed to increase are directly attbuted to specfic customers.
Under the Company's proposal, the difference betwee the averge cost of new distrbution
facilities that is now being recovered thugh rates and the total costs of bringing distrbution
serce to new development wil be paid by those reuestig the extension of facilities. Idaho
Power argues that this wil keep all customer on a level playig field, because everone pays the
average rate base embedded in rates. To the extent that the costs of newer installations excee
the average cost included in rates, that additional cost is paid by the customer who requested it.
Commission Staff
Staff agrees that the Company's investment in facilities for each new customer should be equa
to the embedded costs of the same facilities used to calculate rates, and those costs in excess of
embedded costs should be borne by the cuomer requesting serce thugh a one-time capital
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 19
contrbution. Staff recommends that the costs of new terinal facilties and line extensions
needed to serve new customers be paid by the customer who cause those costs to be incured.
Staff proposes that the Company reduce its share of the investment in new distrbution and
terinal facilities to recover actual customer connection costs not curently recovered though
rates, thereby relieving the upward pressure on rates caused by the curent line extension policy.
Tr. at 276.
Building Contractors
The Building Contractors oppose any changes to the Rule H tarff The Building Contractors
argue that there is no rationale for the proposed changes in Rule H other than an implied
asserion that customers with existing serce should be protected from inflation relative to
customers with new service. They argue that the proposed rule in conjunction with the
regulation may result in Idaho Power being able to collect revenues on assets for which the
Company bore no investment risk, and that the proposed rule change would have a significant
negative effective on developers in the short-term and on taxpayers in the long-ter with little
offsetting benefit. Tr. at 187-189. Building Contractors also claim that the proposed changes
wil result in double biling of customers and increased prices for new home constrction.
Essentially the contractors oppose the Application as a whole, as well as the change to the
allowance recommendation and the averge unit costs.
No other pary fied direct testimony with the Commission.
Public Testimony
Many realtors and contractors testified durng the public hearngs in Pocatello and Boise. They
expressed concerns that the changes could impact new home prices. They generally believe that
if changes to Rule H are approved, many buyer wil be edged out of the market.
Mr. Bil Goodnight testified as a ratepayer durng the June 25 hearng. He supports the changes
to the tarff. He argues that the general body of ratepayers should not pay for these increased
costs.
The public policy issues raised by the Application and the pares are addressed in the following
sections.
III. IMPACT OF SUPREME COURT DECISION ON APPLICATION
On March 5, 1996, the Idaho Supreme Court issued its opinion in Building Contractors
Association v. ¡PUC and Boise Water Corp., 128 Idaho 534, 916 P.2d 1259(1996), (Boise
Water) relating to whether the Commission's decision to IncreaseUnited Water's (formerly
BUIDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 20
Boise Water) hookup fees to reflect higher cost marginal resources was discrminatory to new
customers who must pay the higher fee. The Cour invalidated increased fees that recovered a
portion of new plant cost from new customer stating that "(t)o the extent the fee increase
disproportionately allocates new plant facility costs solely to Boise Water customer connecting
new serice from July 25, 1994, forward, the increase unawfully discriminates against the new
customer." Boise Water, 916 P.2d at 1260.
On July 19, 1996, the Commission issued Order No. 26522 inviting paries to this case to explain
by brief whether or to what extent Idaho Power's proposed charges for new serice attachment
and distrbution line installation are affected by the Supreme Cour's ruling in Boise Water.
The statutory frework within which the Commission is authorized to set rates is found in Title
61, Chapter 3 and 5 of the Idaho Code. Idaho Code § 61-502 provides, in penent par:
Deterination ofrates.-Whenever the commission, after a hearng...shall find that the
rates,...( or) charges or classifications, ...collected by any public utility for any serice or product
or commodity,...are unjust, uneasonable, discrminatory or preferential, or in any wise in
violation of any provision oflaw, or that such rates,...(or) charges or classifications are
insuffcient, the commission shall deterine the just, reasonable or suffcient rates,... ( or)
charges, classifications, rules, regulations, practices or contracts to be thereafter obsered and in
force and shall fix the same by order as hereafter provided, . . . .
Idaho Code § 61-503 provides:
Power to investigate and fix rates and regulations.- The commission shall have power, upon a
hearng,... to investigate a single rate,...charge, (or) classification,...of any public utility, and to
establish new rates,...charges, (or) classifications,...in lieu therf.
Finally, Idaho Code § 61-315 provides:
Discrimination and preference prohibited.-No public utilty shall, as to. rates, chages, serce,
facilities or in any other rest, make or grt any preferce or advantage to any corpration or
person or subject any corpration or peron to any prejudice or disadvantage. No public utility
shall establish or maintain any uneasonable differce as to rates, charges, serce, facilities or
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 21
in any other respect, either as between localities or as between classes of serce. The
commission shall have the power to deterine any question of fact arsing under this secion.
The Supreme Cour explained in Idaho State Homebuilders v. Washington Water Power, 107
Idaho 415, 690 P.2d 530 (1984), that not all differences in rates and charges between different
classes of customers is unlawful discrimination. The Cour explained:
Not all differences in a utility's rates and charges as between different classes of customers
constitute unlawful discrmination or preference under the strctues of Idaho Code § 61-315. A
reasonable classification of utility customer may justify the setting of different rates and charges
for the different classes of customers. Utah Idaho Sugar Company v. Intermountain Gas, 100
Idaho 368, 597 P.2d 1058 (1979). Any such difference (discrmination) in a utilty's rates and
charges must be justified by a corresponding classification of customer that is based upon
factors such as cost of serice, quantity of electrcity used, differences in conditions of servce, or
the time, nature and pattern of the use. Utah Idaho Sugar Company v. Intermountain Gas,
supra. We have found justification for rate discrmination as between customer within a
schedule and as between customers in different schedules. Grindstone Butte Mutual Canal
Company v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 102 Idaho 175,627 P.2d 804 (1981); Utah
Idaho Sugar Company v. Intermountain Gas Company, supra.
Homebuilders, 107 Idaho at 420.
These factors, cost of service, quantity of electrcity used, differences in conditions of serce, or
the time, natue and patter of use, are guidelines the Supreme Cour has set for the Commission
to use to evaluate whether there is a reasonable justification for setting different rates and
charges for different classes of customers. Thus, the issue in ths case becomes whether the
increased charges associated with the Rule H line extension policy unreasonably discriminate
against new customers.
Commission Staff
Staff believes that the proposed line extension charges in ths case do not unawfully discriminate
against new customers. Staff points out that unlike the hookup fees at issue in Boise Water,
Idaho Power's proposed line extenion chages are designated to recover quantifiable costs
related to identifiable plant used to sere only those cutomer who pay the charges. Therefore,
in Staffs opinion, the charges do not unawfully discrminate against new customers and the
holding of Boise Water is inapplicable.
Idaho Power
Idaho Power's position is similar to the Staffs position in that the Idaho Supreme Cour has
recognzed the difference between investment required to sere new customers and investment
required for the system. Idaho Power points out that the Idaho Supreme Cour has ruled that a
system investment should be borne by all the system's customer, i.e., a new generation soure, a
BUIDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FORINTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 22
new water treatment plant like in Boise Water. On the other hand, if the new investment is solely
to provide servce to new customers, then the Commission is authorized to require that the new
customers bear the cost of that new investment. Relying on Idaho State Homebuilders v.
Washington Water Power, Id., Idaho Power states that the Court clearly made a distinction
between system investment, as was the investment in Boise Water, and distrbution investment as
was the case in Washington Water Power. Idaho Power further alleges that in the present
proceeding before the Commission Idaho Power's proposed charge is for new investment
required for extended distrbution facilities. Therefore, Idaho Power argues that the Commission
may lawfully authorize such a charge.
Building Contractors
The Building Contractors argue that Boise Water stood for the premise that there should be no
discrmination between old and new customer. The Building Contractors allege that the Cour
prohibited a pricing scheme that assigns costs to new customer in the absence of clear proofthat
new customers are the cause of higher costs. The Building Contrctors conclude that the charges
in Idaho Power's Application are prohibited by Boise Water and the Commission should reject
the Proposed Rule H.
Discussion
We find that the hookup fees that were at issue in Boise Water are fudamentally differt from
the line extension charges in this case. In Boise Water, the Court strck down increases in
hookup fees because they '4disproportionately allocate new plant facility costs" to new
customer. Boise Water, 916 P.2d at 1260. The facts associated with the hookup fees in Boise
Water, however, are significantly different from the facts of this case. In Boise Water the utilty
constrcted a water treatment plant at a cost of $16 milion puruant to the federal Safe Drinkng
Water Act. Boise Water Company subsequently applied to the Commission to increase its rates
and its hookup fees for new customer to offset the cost of the water treatment plant. In order to
minimize futue general rate increases, Boise Water proposed increaing its hookup fee to
reflect the higher marginal cost of its backbone resources.
In Order No. 25640, issued July 19, 1994, the Commission approved a 29.59% general rate
increase and increased the hookup fees for residential customers to $1,200, an average of the cost
per customer of a well and a water treatment plant. The Commission reasoned that, because the
cost of supply for a new serice connection vared greatly depending on whether the water
supply came from a well or a water treatment plant, it was reasnable to use an averge of the
two costs, plus an amount for storage and pumping water. The Commission reasoned that its
decision would help protect existing ratepayer from the costs asociated with growt and
"ensur that growt pays for itself." Order No. 25640 at 31.
On appeal, the Supreme Cour addressed the issue of whether in allocating theincreased cost of
new supply to new customers via increas hookup fees, the Commission reguarly purued its
BUIDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN. IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 23
authority to set nondiscriminatory rates as required by Idaho Code §§ 61-301,61-315, -502, and
-503. The Court held that the hookup fees approved by the Commission unawfuly discrminated
against Boise Water's new customer. The Cour explained:
Like the facts in Homebuilders, the patter, natue, and time of Boise Water customers' usage
did not change on July 25, 1994, nor did the conditions of servce. Id. at 421,690 P.2d at 356.
Similarly, the quantity of water used by Boise Water's individual customers before July 25,
1994, does not differ from the quantity used by individual customers added to the system after
that date. Id. Thus, as in Homebuilders, the focus of this case is whether the cost of servce
differ between the two classes.
The cost of servicing all Boise Water customers has increased, due in part to passage of the Safe
Drnkng Water Act, limitations on the availabilty of water, and inflationar factors. While it is
true that the cost of servce has increased, the cost has increased proportionately for each Boise
Water customer. There is no difference in the cost of serce between customers who connected
to Boise Water's system before July 25, 1994, and those who have connected or wil connect to
the system from that date forward. Each new customer that has come into the system at any time
has contrbuted to the need for new facilties. No parcular group of customers should bear the
burden of additional expense occasioned by changes in federal law that impose new water
quality standards. To the extent that the new hookup fee are based on an allocation of the
incremental cost of new plant constrction required by growth and by the Safe Drinking Act
solely to new customers, the fees unawfully discrminate between old and new customer in
violation of section 61-315 of the Idaho Code.
Boise Water, 916 P.2d at 1268.
The Court went on to explain that the increased hookup fees to Boise Water customers contained
an incremental or marginal capital investment cost of new plant constrction. The Court noted
that the Building Contractors Assciation (also a par to ths proceeing), "concede that
hookup fees may be charged and need to be increased incrementally from time to time to reflect
such factors as inflation." Id., 916P .2d at 1267. This is another factal distinction between
Boise. Water and ths case. As Staff explains in direct testimony, it believes that the increased
charges associated with the Rule H line extenion policy are caused by many factors, including
inflation.
Because of the natue of Boise Water's system, it is not possible to deterine whether any
customer, new or old, is or wil be sered by a well or a water treatment plant. Ths is the
foundation for the Cour's ruling in Boise Water and a crtically distingushing factor betwee
Boise Water and this case. Idaho Power's proposed line extension charges are imposed only on
those customers who wil be served by the related facilties. Those facilties wil provide serce
only to those customer who paid for them. As the Company indicates, transmission, substation
BUIDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWSTERN IDAIO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 24
and generation costs are viewed as system-related rather than customer-specific, and those costs
were not included as par of the proposed incrased line extenion charge.
Most important, the Supreme Cour in Boise Water identified a significant factual distinction
betwee Boise Water and the case at hand "The Cour rued that the fees at issue here are not
those charged to offset the actual per-customer cost of physically connecting to Boise Water's
distrbution system." ld. 1916 P .2d at 1260 (fn. 1.) Indeed, the Homebuilders' Court
specifically ruled that costs incured to sere a specific customer or group of customer, such as
line extension costs, may be recovered solely from those customers.
The Cour held:
The intat case presents no factors such as when a nonrecurrg charge is imposed upon new
customers because the serice they require demands an extension of existing distrbution or
communication lines and a charge is imposed to offset the cost of the utilty's capital investment.
107 Idaho at 421 , (emphasis added).
Commission Findings
Basd on the above discussion, we find that the charges at issue in this case do not unlawfully
discrminate against new customer, that the line extension fee is inherently different frm the
hookup fees in Boise Water. We therefore find that the holding of Boise Water does not prohibit
a change in the rates at issue here.
iv. ISSUES RASED BY APPLICATION
A. Motion to Reopen the Record
On September 30, 1996, Idaho Power filed a Motion to Reope the Record for the limted
purpose of receiving the Affdavit of Gregory W. Said. The Motion was filed due to an eror the
Company had discovered in the proposed line extension allowance for three phase serce to
Schedule 7 (small general serice) customer, Schedule 9 (large generl service) customer and
Schedule 24 (irrgation serice) customer. The Company indicated that the eror resulted in the
proposed allowance being significantly understated. The Company also indicated that the
proposed allowance for Schedule 1 (residential cutomer) was not affected by the eror.
On October 3,1996, Staff responded to Idaho Power's Motion to Reope the Proceengs. Staff
indicated that it agreed with augmentation of the recrd by the affdavit filed by the Company.
Staff recommended that if the Commission approves ths change, that the Company should be
directed to fie corrected tarffs consistent with this change. No other parties filed a response to
Idaho Power Company's Motion.
We find that paries were given proper notice to the Motion and that no par wil be denied due
process by the receipt of the affdavit. We therefore grt Idaho Power's Motion to Reopen the
Record for the limited purse of receiving the Affdavit of Gregory W. Said.
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUDING - Page 2S
B. Average Unit Costs v. Work Order Costs
The average unit cost method now used for deterining the costs of line extensions is based on
average installed costs for varous elements ofline extenions. The actual installed cost of each
individual line extension can be either higher or lower than the estiated cost as determined by
the average unit cost method. The ter "work order costs" refer to an adjusted work order cost,
or a work order from which those items for which the cutomer would not be charged have been
removed. Adjusted work order costs refer to work order costs less terminal facilities and less
any work included as par of the work order not done specifically for the customer, i.e.,
Company or system betterment. Tr. at 382. The use of average unt costs was intended to
simplify and expedite the process of makng cost estimates for new line extensions.
Idaho Power
The Company has proposed eliminating the average unit cost method and using actu work
order costs to determine line extension costs. It believes work order costs more accurately assign
specific costs to specific customer. The Company claims that it has streamlined the cost
estimating process and that it can do detaled work order costs in an effcient maner. The
Company claims that the difference in time required to prepare estimates using either method
would not be as significant, and therefore, there is no need for both methods. Tr. at 9. The
Company also notes that under the average unit cost method, customers may either under payor
over pay for their line extensions.
Commission Staff
The Staff supports the proposed change frm an averge unt cost method to a work order cost
method and notes that the curent average method often results in inaccurate estimates for
individual line extensions. Tr. at 297. Staff does recommend, however, that some procedure be
implemented to ensure that periodic checks are done between adjusted work order costs and
reconciled work order costs so that the Commission can have the assurance that what is booked
by the Company, is in fact, close to what is paid by the customer. Adjusted work order costs are
cost estimates prior to constrction. Reconciled work order costs are post constrction costs
booked by the Company. Staff proposes that the Company charge adjusted work order costs.
Tr. at 271.
Building Contractors
The Building Contrctors oppose the change frm an averge unit cost method to work order
cost method. The Building Contractors asser that the work order costs usually exceed the
average unit costs by a substantial margin. Tr. at 190.
Commissions Findings
In the past we have permitted the Company to use averge unt costs because it seemed to
simplify and expedite the cost estimating process. We recognze that in some cicumstances
averaging may be the only or best method for calculating costs. However, in this case the
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 26
Company believes it can prepare work order estimates specific to each customer just as
expeditiously. The Building Contractors claim that work order costs usually exceed average unit
costs. Ou review of the record indicates that this is not supported by the record nor the audit of
Idaho Power conducted by Staffin 1994. See Case No. IPC-E-94-5. We find that using work
order costs rather than average unit costs is an effective means of treating customer individually
and fairly, and insuring that one customer does not pay too much for a serice while another
pays too little. We also conclude that changing to a work order cost method wil provide an
incentive for more economical building practices. Subdivisions with below average costs for
electrical facilities wil now pay only their costs and subdivisions with above average costs wil
not be subsidized. We fid that using adjusted work order costs rather than average unt costs is
fair, just and reasonable. We also find that a perodic audit of the work order costs wil be an
effectve way to insure that booked amounts reflect customer payments.
Although no part presented a proposal for allowing a developer to hire his own contrctor or
requiring the utility to solicit bids, severl public witnesses testified that they thought this would
be an effcient way to control costs. We encourage the Company to consider these options. We
believe there may mert in the suggestions of the witnesses. We direc the Company to reprt to
us withn six months of the date of this Order its analysis of these concers and the feasibilty of
allowing developers to hire independent contractors or requiring the Company to solicit bids for
ths tye of construction.
c. Allowances
Idaho Power and Staff are in agreement with regard to the allowances proposed in ths case. The
proposed allowances are as follows:
1. Residential (Schedule 1)
100% of cost of terinal facilties
No allowance toward cost of line extension
2. Subdivisions
Same as individual residential except developer pays in advance for transformers and receives a
refud as each new customer is connected in an amount equa to each lot's share of the
trsformer costs for the subdivision.
3. Small Commerial (Schedule 7)
Single Phase: 100% of cost of terinal facilties
Thee Phase: 80% of ternal facilties
BUIDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUDING - Page 27
4. Large Commercial (Schedule 9)
Single Phase: $926
Thee Phase: 80% of terinal facilties
5. Irgation (Schedule 24)
Single Phase: $926
Thee Phase: 100% of terinal facilties
6. Industral (Schedule 19)
Deterne allowances on a case-by-case basis
The Building Contractors oppose any changes to the curent allowances for Schedule 1
customers. The Building Contrctors explain that the "Commission policy for the past 60 years
has been to allow some porton of line extenion costs to be recovered in generl rates."
Building Contractors Brief at 7. It clais that the allowance changes in the proposed Rule H
shift full responsibility for those costs to new customers.
Commission Findings
All pares in this case seem to agree that the cost of sering new customer is increasing. There
is debate, however, about the exact causes of the increasing cost and whether the cost burden
should be borne by all customers through a rate increase or by new customers through higher line
extension charges. We do not believe it is necessar to deterne the exact cause of higher
costs, but we do believe it is important to address the issues raised as a result.
In the case of distrbution plant, it is easy to identify the purose for its constrction.
Furermore, we believe it is the obligation .of the. Commission to .provide a reasonable and fair
method of reverng these increased costs. We fid that new customer are entitled to have the
Company provide a level of investment equal to that made to sere existing customer in the
same class. Recover of those costs in excess of embedded costs must also be provided for and
the impact on the rates of existing customer is an importt par of our consideration. . We also
recognize that requiring the payment of all costs above embedded investment from new
customers could have severe economic effects.
Under the proposed Rule H, the recommended allowances are calculated based on the total
embedded cost of distrbution. facilities. The total embedded cost is made up of two components
BUIDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING- Page 28
- one portion for terinal facilities, and one porton for line extensions. To the extent that any
allowance is ordered, some portion of distrbution cost wil continue to be recovered through
rates. Whether the allowance is applied in exact proportions toward the terinal facilities
component, the line extension component, or both, is not crticaL. The amount of the allowance is
crtical, however. We find it is reasonable to apply the allowance in a maner so as to pay the
cost ofterinal facilties first, and apply any remaining amount of the allowance to the line
extension portion of the costs.
We find that the curent allowances should be reduced somewhat to prevent an unreasonable
portion of the line extension costs from being shifted to base rates. The allowances we adopt are
shown in Attachment 1 to this Order. We find that they are fair, just and reasonable and
represent a reasonable allocation of line extension costs.
D. Refund Policy
Idaho Power's current refud method, sometimes referred to as the proportional method,
includes provisions that allow customers who request a line extension to their propey to collect
a refud as other customer hook up to the same line. Refuds are computed using a method that
allocates costs based on the lengt of shared line and the ratio of each customer's load. Orginal
applicants and subsequent additional applicants are eligible to receive refuds for five year from
the date the first customer is connected. Idaho Power claims that this curent system is
burdensome and administratively difficult to track. Thus, Idaho Power proposes to change the
policy to a first-in first-out method. Using this method, the existing shared load and lengt ratio
formula would be retained, but vested interest refunds would be made first to the longest
standing vested interest holder until that interest is fully paid, before a refud is paid to any
subsequent applicant.
Staff proposes to retain the curent policy of vested interest refuds. Staff claims the curent
policy is fairer to customer than the Company's proposed first-in first-out method, and that the
curent policy is not as burdensome as the Company claims. Staff does recommend, however,
that the refud perod be extended to 10 years for platted, undeveloped subdivisions to alleviate
complaints from original applicants who become saddled with the entire cost burden when
subsequent applicants "wait out" the five-year refund perod. Staff also recommends instituting
a minimum refund amount to relieve the Company of administrtive diffculties.
The Building Contractors did not take a position on ths policy.
Commission Findings
The Commission recgnzes the merts in the positions put forth by both the Company and Staff.
We believe the proportonal metod is fair, but sympathize with the Company's concers
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 29
regarding the method's administrative complexity. Similar arguments have bee made in
another docket, UPL-E-96-4, which is also currently before the Commission.
We are not prepared to completely abandon the proportional method in favor of the Company's
proposed first-in, first-out method; however, neither are we comfortable orderng that the curent
method be retained if it canot easily be administered. Consequently, we order that a new
method be implemented, that wil capture the advantages of the curent and the proposed
methods and balance the competing objectives of faiess and administrtive complexity. First,
a five-year refud perod is reasonable and should be retained, except in the cases of platted,
undeveloped subdivisions where we order a 10-year refud perod. Second, we order that the
first five customers sharng a common segment of a line extension shall be responsible for the
cost of the line. By limiting cost responsibility to five customer and limiting the refud perod
to five years, we believe much of the curent administrative diffculty wil be relieved. In order
to preserve fairness, we order that length and load ratios continue to be used in deterining each
customer's cost responsibility. Finally, to further eliminate incentives for additional customers
to wait to connect, the cost responsibilty wil shift from the fit applicant to each successive
applicant until each of the first five customer has an equal minimum cost responsibilty. The
cost responsibility shall be 100% for the first cutomer and decrease by 20% for each successive
customer. Vested interest payments made to the Company by each successive applicant shall, in
tum, be refunded by the Company to the most recent previous applicant. Thus, for example, the
second customer shall pay 80% of the cost of the shared facilties; that amount shall be refuded
to the first customer. The thrd customer shall pay 60% of the cost of the shared facilties; that
amount shall be refuded to the second customer. The fourh customer shall pay 40%, to be
refuded to the third customer. Finally, the fifth customer shall pay 20%, to be refuded to the
fourth customer.
We find that this method adequately addresses the concers of the Company and the Staff and is
fair and reasonable for customers. We direct Commission Staff to work with the Company to
implement this new refund system.
E. Engieerig Charge & General Overheads
Under the existing Rule H tarff engieerng costs are incorporated in the overhead charged on
each work order. The Company currently charges 17% in overhead fees that include
constrction engineering and superision, constrction injuries and insurance and constrction
accounting. Tr.at 308. Under the new proposal, Idaho Power would itemze engineerig
charges. Tr.at 50.. Commission Staff rased the issue of how much the general overhead rate
should be reduced if engineerng is charged separately. Idaho Power contends that it wants to
separate engineering charges from general overhead costs; however, it does not want to specify
the percentage of amount charge. The Company argues that it needs to be able to adjust the
engineerng charge periodically as circumstances change. Tr. at 394, lines 1-6. Idaho Power has
acknowledged that because the engieerg fee has been separted out, that the generl overhead
rate should be reduced. Tr. at 392. Staff has recommended that the overhead charge should be
specific in the tarff and has recommended a general overhead rate of 1.5%. Staffs Exhbit
114.
BUILING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUESTFORINTERVENOR FUNDING-Page30
The Building Contractors did not take a position on ths issue.
Commission's Findings
Both Staff and the Company are in agreement that there should be a reduction in the gener
overhead rate if engieerng costs are charged separtely. We agree with Staff that both the rate
for engineering work and the general overhead rate should be known by customer, and specified
in the tarff. We find Staffs recommendation for a 1.5% general overhead rate to be fai, just
and reasonable.
F. Omitted Sedions and Service Attachment Charge
The Commission Staff reommended inclusion of cerain provisions in the proposed Rule H that
are in the curent tarffbut were excluded in the Company's proposal. These sections relate to
fire protection facilities, local improvement distrcts and interest on constrction payments. The
Company agrees that these sections should be included in the revised Rule H and incorporated in
the tarffs.
Staff also recommended a single charge for the serice attachment charge and noted a difference
of $5 between the base charge assessed for underground serce installation where the customer
supplies the trench conduit and backfill and the Company supplied underground serce
installation. Staff recommended elimnating the difference by moving both base charges to the
lower charge. The Company agrees with the establishment of a single-base charge, however,
proposes that the base charge that the Company has proposed be averged, resulting in the base
charge of $32.50 for underground service from underground lines and $252 for underground
serce from overhead lines regardless of who supplies the trench and backfill. Tr. at 378. Staff
also suggested that the tarffbe reworded in order to make it easier to understand and
administer.
The Building Contrctors did not take a position on ths issue.
Commission's Findings
We adopt Staffs and Idaho Power's recommendation for the inclusion of the omitted section in
the proposed Rule H and find that these sections should be included in the tarff fiings. We also
agree with. the Company and Staffs recommendation of a single-base charge for the serce
attachment charge. We find that a base charge for underground serice of $30 and a base charge
for overead serice at $255 to be fair, just and reasonable. We also find the tarff should be
reworded as suggested by Staff.
V. INTERVENOR FUNDING
On September 12, 1996, the Building Contrctors filed Petition for Interenor Funding purt
to Rule 161-170 of the Commission's Rules of Procedur, IDAP A 31.01.01.161-170.
BUILDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 31
Idaho Code § 61-617 A and Rule 162 of the Commssion's Rules of Procedure provide the
framework for awards of intervenor fuding. Section 61-617 A provides that the Commission
shall rely upon the following considerations in awaring fuding to a given interenor: (1)
whether the intervenor materally contrbuted to the decision redered by the Commission; (2)
whether the alleged costs of interention are reasnable in amount and would be a significant
financial hardship for the interenor to incur (3) whether the reommendation made by the
interenor differed materally from the testimony and exhibits ofthe Commission Staff and (4)
whether the testimony and paricipation of the intervenor addressed issues of concern to the
general body of users or consumer.
The statute furter provides that the total award for all intervening paries combined shall not
exceed $25,000 in any proceeding.
Rule 162 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure provides the procedural requirements with
which an application for interenor fuding must comply. The application must contain: (1) an
itemized list of expenses broken down into categories; (2) a statement of the intervenor's
proposed finding or recommendation; (3) a statement showing that the costs the interenor
wishes to recover are reasonable; (4) a statement explaining why the costs constitute a significant
financial hardship for the interenor; (5) a statement showing how the interenor's proposed
finding or recommendation differed materally from the testimony and exhbits of the
Commssion Staff; (6) a statement showing how the interenor's recommendation or position
addressed issues of concern to the general body of utility user or customer; and (7) a statement
showing the class of customer on whose behalf the interenor appeared.
Finally, Rile 165 provides that the Commission must find that the interenor's presentation
materially contrbuted to the Commission's decsion.
The Building Contractors allege that its position was materally differt from the Commission's
Staff It claims that it addressed issues concering a general body of ratepayers and lead to a
more in depth and rigorous examination of cerain issues. The Building Contractors claimed the
following fees and costs were incurred in this proceeding:
Legal fees: 114 hours at $125 per hour $14,250.00
Consultant fees: 128.5 hour at $95 per hour $12,207.50
Photocopies, trvel to Pocatello and miscellaneous $ 220.00
Total $26,677.50
On September 26, 1996, Idaho Power fied a response to the Building Contractors' Petition for
Interenor Funding stating that the Petition should have more detailed itemization, but
neverheless, recommending approval of the request and recover from the class that primarly
benefitted; i.e., lots within subdivisions that require line extensions. Idaho Power recommends
collecting a subdivision lot charge of$I1.00 per lot for one year.
BUIDING CONTRCTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING - Page 32
Commission Findings
The Building Contractors' Petition meets the procedur requirements set fort in Idaho Code §
61-617 A and Rules 161-170 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. The Building Contractors
made a suffcient showing of financial hardship, took a position that differed materally frm the
Commission Staff and raised issues of concer to the general body of ratepayers.
The Building Contractors contrbuted materally to our final decision in this case. Therefore, we
find that the amount of interenor fuding requested by the Building Contractors is reasonable
and hereby award the amount of $25,000. Idaho Power is required to pay the Building
Contractors this amount within twenty-eight (28) days from the serce date of this Order. We
adopt Idaho Power's proposal to collect a subdivision lot charge of $11 per lot to be effective as
of the date of this Order, to reimburse the Company for the interenor funding award, pursuant to
Rule 165 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. This incremental addition to subdivision lot
charge shall be removed after beig in effect for one year.
VI. ULTIMATE FIINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Idaho Power is a public utilty puruant to Idaho Code §§ 61-119 and 61-129. The Commission
has jursdiction over this matter pursuant to Title 61 of the Idaho Code. The Commission grts
Idaho Power's motion to reopen the record for receipt of an afdavit. The Commssion also
grants Idaho Power's Application for revisions to its Rule H tarff with modifications to the tarff
as set forth above.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Idaho Power's Motion to Reopen the Recrd for the limited
purse of receiving the Affdavit of Gregory W. Said is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power's Application for approval of new tarff
provisions relating to new serice attachment and distrbution line installations or altertions is
approved with modifications as enumerated above and as shown on Attachment 1.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power shall file revised tarffs consistent with this
Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Pettion for Interenor Funding filed by the Building
Contractors is hereby grted in the amount of $25,000. . Idaho Power is direted to pay theses
amounts within twenty-eight (28) days frm the serice date of this Order and to assess a
subdivision lot charge of $11 per lot effecve for a period of one year.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in ths Order (or in issues fially decded by
this Order) or in interlocutory Orer previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-95-18 may
petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the serce date of this Order with
regad to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in ths
Case No. IPC-E-95-18. Withn seven (7) days afer any person has petitioned for
BUIDING CONTRCTORS ASIATION OF SOUTHWSTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUDING - Page 33
reconsideration, any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-
626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
Februar 1997.
day of
RALPH NELSON, PRESIDENT
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Myra J. Walter
Commission Secretary
vld/O:IPC-E-95-18.sh3
Descriptive Name: O.N. 26780 - Line Extension
Creation Date: 11122/19962:32:16 PM
Revision Date: 11111601 12:00:00 AM
Author: SHamlin
Typist: BSORREL
Filename: E:\Common\UT__ ORD\26795.0RD\26780.wp
dtSearch 6.03 (6079)
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING-Page 34
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby cerify that on the 9th day of November, 2009, a tre and correct copy of the
foregoing was served upon the following individual(s) by the mean indicated:
Origial Pius Seven Filed:
Jean D. Jewell, Secetar
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
oo~oo
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
Express Mail
Hand Deliver
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
Serve Copie:
Lisa D. Nordstm
Baron L. Kline
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
Inordstrom~idahopower.com
bkline(idahopower.com
~ U.S. Mail, postage preaid
o Express Mail
o Hand Deliver
o Facsimile
~ Electronic Mail
Scott Sparks
Gregory W. Said
Idaho Power Company
POBox 70
Boise, ID 83707-0070
ssparks~idapower.com
gsaid~idahopower.com
~ U.S. Mail, postage praid
o Expres Mail
o Hand Deliver
o Facsimile
~ Electronic Mail
Krstine A. Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W. Washigton
POBox 83720
Boise,ID 83720-0074
krs.saseruc.idaho.gov
~ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
o Express Mail
o Hand Deliver
o Facsimile
~ Electronic Mail
BUIING CONTRACTORS ASIATION OF SOUTWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUDING - Page 35
Matthew A. Johnson
Davis F . VanderVelde
White, Peteron, Gigray, Rossman, Nye &
Nichols, P.A.
5700 E. Franin Rd., Ste. 200
Nampa, ID 83687
mjohnson~whitepeterson.com
dvanderelde~whitepeterson.com
Attorneys for The City of Nampa and The
Association of Canyon County Highway
Districts
Michael Kur
Kur J. Boehm
Boehm, Kurz & Lowr
36 E. Seventh St., Ste. 1510
Cincinnati, OH 45202
mkz~BKLlawfirm.com
Kboehm~BKLlawfirm.com
Attorneys for The Kroeger Co.
Kevin Higgins
Energy Strategies, LLC
Parkside Tower
215 S. State St., Ste. 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
khiggins~energystrat.com
Representing The Kroeger Co.
Scott D. Spear
Ada County Highway Distrct
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, ID 83714
sspeacqachd.ada.id.us
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
Express Mail
Hand Deliver
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
Express Mail
Hand Deliver
Facsimile
Electrnic Mail
u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
Express Mail
Hand Deliver
Facsimile
Eleconic Mail
u.S. Mail, postage prepaid
Express Mail
Hand Deliver
Facsimile
Electronic Mail
BUILDING CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO'S REQUEST
FOR INTERVENOR FUNDING.. Page 36