20160510reconsideration_order_no_33514.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
May 10,2016
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER )
COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO )CASE NO.IPC-E-15-26
APPROVE THE TRANSFER AND SALE OF )
CERTAIN ASSETS TO THE UNITED )
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,)ORDER NO.33514
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION )
_____________________________________________________________________________________
)
Idaho Power Company filed an Application with the Commission for an Order
approving the transfer and sale of assets to the United States Department of Justice,Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI),under Idaho Code §61-328.The Commission approved Idaho
Power’s Application in Order No.33470.Intervenor Industrial Customers of Idaho Power
(ICIP)filed a timely Petition for Reconsideration,generally asserting that the Commission’s
Order does not conform to the law,and asking that the Commission initiate a separate case to
establish rules governing the price customers must pay to purchase assets from Idaho Power.
The Commission granted the Petition to reconsider issues raised therein.Order No.33501.On
reconsideration,the Commission affirms its prior order on different grounds.In summary,we
find that Idaho Code §61-328 does not govern the sale of the property here because that
property is serving only the FBI and not the public or a portion thereof.We affirm our approval
of the sale,however,because it is in the public interest and does not increase costs and rates for
customers.Lastly,we deny ICIP’s request that we initiate a proceeding to establish parameters
for determining the price for the sale of Idaho Power’s assets.Our decision is explained below.
BACKGROUND
Idaho Power provides electric service to an FBI facility in the Company’s service
territory.Application at 2.Idaho Power owns and operates transformers and other facilities
(“Assets”)on the FBI’s side of the Point of Delivery (the point at which the customer’s power
usage is measured,hereafter “POD”),to meet the FBI’s service requirements.Id.The rates and
charges for providing and maintaining these Assets to large customers are governed by Idaho
Power’s Rule M “Facilities Charge Service”in the Company’s Tariff No.101.1 Id.Consistent
l Tariffs are rules or rate schedules applicable to a particular utility.Tariffs are generally approved by the
Commission under Idaho Code §61-502,61-507,61-523 and 61-622.Idaho Power Company’s Rule M Facilities
Charge Service can be found on the Commission’s web site at:
ORDER NO.33514
with Rule M,the FBI has paid Idaho Power a monthly facilities charge for this optional service.
Id.
At the FBI’s request,Idaho Power entered into an Asset Sale Agreement,to transfer
and convey the Assets to the FBI for a purchase price of $79,373.Agreement (Redacted)at 3.
Idaho Power applied to the Commission for approval of the proposed Agreement under Idaho
Code §6 1-328 and Idaho Power’s Rule M.Id.at §E.,3(a).The Commission issued a Notice
of Application in December 2015.Order No.33433.
ICIP filed a Petition to Intervene,which the Commission granted.Order No.33443.
The Commission received comments from Staff,ICIP,and the FBI,and reply comments from
the Company.All parties,including ICIP,recommended —or did not object to —approval of
Idaho Power’s Application.The Commission also held a public technical hearing,at which
representatives from Idaho Power,ICIP,and Commission Staff appeared and addressed the
Commission,consistent with their comments.On February 24,2016,the Commission issued
Order No.33470,approving Idaho Power’s Application.Despite its non-opposition,ICIP filed a
Petition for Reconsideration.Idaho Power filed a timely Answer to the Petition.The
Commission granted the Petition,and now enters this Order on Reconsideration.
FINAL ORDER NO.33470
In our final Order,the Commission determined that Rule M and Idaho Code §6 1-328
were satisfied.Applying Section 6 1-328,we found that the Assets transfer would not impact
deliverability or reliability of electric service to other customers,as the Assets serve only the
FBI,thus satisfying the public interest requirement.Order No.33470 at 5.The Commission
also found “the sales price methodology in the Agreement protects ratepayers and does not cause
rates to increase.”Id.In addition,the Commission found no indication that “the FBI lacks the
bona fide intent and financial ability to operate and maintain the Assets.”Id.We noted that the
sales price was “mutually agreed upon by Idaho Power and the FBI after careful consideration”
of the requirements for an equitable asset sale.Id.at 6.There being no evidence to the contrary,
and no opposition to the transaction,the Commission concluded that all statutory requirements
were met.Id.
The Commission then addressed ICIP’s recommendation to open a separate docket to
address how to value the purchase price of utility-owned assets.Although ICIP did not oppose
the transaction between Idaho Power and the FBI,ICIP asked the Commission to define rules to
ORDERNO.33514 2
be applied to all future sales of utility-owned facilities that serve a single customer.ICIP
Comments at 3.The Commission declined ICIP’s proposal,and instead emphasized,“we do not
endorse Idaho Power’s price methodology ,..as precedent going forward.”Order No.33470 at
6.The Commission continued,“The circumstances of any given agreement between a utility and
customer for the purchase of utility-owned assets are unique....[A]greements like that between
Idaho Power and the FBI here,are ill-suited to,and would not benefit from,the imposition of
rules for determining a purchase price.”Id.Accordingly,the Commission determined that
applications for the sale of facilities will be evaluated “on a case-by-case basis.”Id.,citing
Order No.32426 at 33;see also Order No.32940 at 5.
THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ICIP asserts that the Commission’s Order “is not in conformity with the law.”
Petition at 2.According to ICIP,the Order “(1)obviates the Commission’s obligations under the
Idaho Public Utility Laws;(2)inappropriately applies Idaho Code Sections 6 1-327 and 6 1-328
and (3)...is arbitrary because it allows Idaho Power to engage in discriminatory treatment of
its customers in the determination of the sales price for ...utility-owned assets.”Id.
As to its first argument,ICIP contends that Idaho Code §61-301 and 61-302
obligate the Commission “to insure that rates and charges Idaho Power extracts for its service
and facilities are fair,just and reasonable.”Id.ICIP asserts the Commission has “broad powers
to regulate the provision of utility services,including the provision of utility-owned facilities on
the ratepayer side of the meter,”citing Idaho Code §61-503.Id.at 3.According to ICIP,the
Commission has allowed “Idaho Power to unilaterally determine the price for the sale of utility-
owned assets on the customer side of the meter,[thus]leaving the ratepayer to fend for him or
herself in exactly the unequal bargaining position that [Idaho’s]Public Utilities Laws ...were
designed to prevent.”Id.at 4.ICIP further argues that “the Commission has explicitly declined
to make its statutorily obligated findings with regard to the sufficiency of the price [of the Assets
purchased by the FBI],”Id.ICIP indicates that its Petition “does not address whether the
Commission has the authority to force a particular sale,but only that when a utility proposes to
engage in such a sale that the Commission has the obligation to set fair,just and reasonable rates,
fares,tolls and contracts inherent in those sales.”Id.at 5.
ICIP’s second argument is that Idaho Code §61-328 does not apply to this case
because Idaho Power’s sale is to a single customer,whose use of the Assets will serve only that
ORDERNO.33514 3
customer,and not the broader public.Id.at 6-7.ICIP argues that the statutory scheme relied on
by the Commission does not give the Commission authority to structure a sale of utility assets to
an entity —the FBI that is not subject to its regulatory authority.Id.at 8,citing Idaho Code §
6 1-327 and Idaho Power Co.v.State ofIdaho,104 Idaho 575,589,661 P.2d 741,755 (1983).
Finally,ICIP argues that the Commission’s Order is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Petition at 8.ICIP asserts,“Allowing Idaho Power to unilaterally determine the sales price,and
charge for lost revenues and profits,is not only a departure from historic Commission precedent,
it is an arbitrary abdication of the Commission’s duties to affirmatively set the rates and terms of
service for utilities it regulates.”Id.at 8-9.ICIP continues,“The Commission has not explained
why it has suddenly departed from its traditional book value approach to the sale of utility assets
by now allowing Idaho Power to unilaterally set a sales price that far exceeds book value.”Id.at
9.
In its prayer for relief,ICIP asks that the Commission reconsider “its decision not to
initiate a proceeding to establish parameters for determining the price for the sale of Idaho
Power-owned assets subject to Rule M.”Id.
IDAHO POWER’S ANSWER
Idaho Power notes that “fCIP explicitly did not object to the Sale in its Comments...
or at the public technical hearing.”Answer at 2.Idaho Power asserts that ICIP “misunderstands
Rule M,[regarding the Company’s]Facilities Charge Service,”and explains that “Idaho Power
provides the Facilities Charge Service at the customer’s request and the Company’s option to the
approximately 260 Idaho jurisdictional customers that have requested it.”Id.at 2-3 (footnote
omitted).The Company contends,“Idaho Power has no monopoly beyond the POD,”noting that
the Facilities Charge Service is beyond the POD and “provided as a voluntary service.”Id.at 4.
Idaho Power agrees that “the ‘public service’language in Idaho Code §61-328(3)(c)
is awkward,”but disagrees that the statute is inapplicable to its sale of Assets to the FBI.Id.at 5.
The Company argues that the Commission’s Orders issued under Section 61-328 “enable the
utility to provide clear title and authorize removal of facilities from the utility’s system of
accounts governed by Idaho Code §61-524.”Id.Also,the “Commission’s role is to protect the
general body of customers from negative impacts resulting from the sale;it is not the
Commission’s duty to protect an individual in an arm’s length transaction to procure facilities or
services that can be acquired from other providers.”Id.at 6.
ORDERNO.335M 4
Idaho Power asserts that the Commission’s case-by-case review of facilities sales
under Rule M is appropriate.Id.at 6.“When the Commission reviews utility facility sales to
customers in the context of the circumstances present,it fulfills its statutory duty under Idaho
Code §6 1-328 to authorize only those transactions consistent with the public interest.”Id.at 6-
7.Although “other circumstances may warrant different pricing methods or contract terms to
reflect the value proposition present in a particular transaction,”Idaho Power maintains that the
pricing methodology used in this case “provides a reasonable framework for evaluating facilities
sales [here and]in the future.”Id.at 7.In sum,the Company asserts that ICIP’s request “for
a generic pricing methodology is not necessary or required”to safeguard the public interest or to
ensure that “other customers are not negatively impacted.”Id.at 9.Idaho Power therefore asks
the Commission to deny ICIP’s Petition.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Idaho’s Public Utilities Law and Commission rules,any person interested in a
final order of the Commission shall have the right to petition for reconsideration thereof.See
Idaho Code §61-626(1);IDAPA 3 1.01.01.331.01.A petition for reconsideration must articulate
“grounds why ...the order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in conformity with the
law.”IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01.Reconsideration provides an opportunity for a party to bring to
the Commission’s attention any issue previously determined,and thereby affords the
Commission an opportunity to correct any mistake or omission.Washington Water Power Co.v.
Kootenai Environmental Alliance,99 Idaho 875,591 P.2d 122 (1979).The Commission may
grant reconsideration by reviewing the existing record,or by soliciting additional pleadings or
evidence.Idaho Code §61-626;IDAPA 31.01.01.332.If the Commission believes its final
order “should be changed,the Commission may [do so].”Idaho Code §6 1-626(3).An order on
reconsideration that changes the original final order shall have the same force and effect as the
original order.Id.;see also Idaho Code §6 1-624.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
We have reviewed the record,including ICIP’s Petition for Reconsideration and
Idaho Power’s Answer.As noted in our Order granting the Petition,we found it unnecessary to
accept further evidence or argument.Order No.33501 at 2-3.Based on our review of the record
and all pleadings before us,we deny ICIP’s requested relief,and enter this Order modifying our
analysis in final Order No.33470.
ORDER NO.33514 5
A.Right to Petition for Reconsideration
As an initial matter,we question whether ICIP has a sufficient “interest”to allow it to
petition for reconsideration.To petition for reconsideration,a petitioner must have a legally
cognizable interest in a matter decided in the order.See Idaho Code §61-626(1).Our decision
whether a legally cognizable interest exists is informed by the doctrine of standing.To
demonstrate standing,a petitioner must show:
(1)an injury in fact,(2)a sufficient causal connection between the injury and
the conduct complained of,and (3)a like[lihood]that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision.
Coeur d’Alene Tribe v.Denney,—Idaho —(November 20,2015),2015 WL 7421342 at *3,
quoting State v.Philip Morris,Inc.,158 Idaho 874,881,354 P.3d 187,194 (2015).An injury in
fact “must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent,not conjectural or
hypothetical.”Id.
The record before us fails to reveal any impact (adverse or otherwise)on ICIP from
the Asset transfer.Because there is no actual,imminent or even hypothetical injury,there is
nothing to remedy with a favorable decision on reconsideration.Nevertheless,because the
Commission historically has liberally allowed persons to participate in Commission proceedings,
and because we have already permitted ICIP to intervene in this case,we accept ICIP’s petition
and explain why it fails on its merits.
B.The Commission’s Order Complies with its Statutory Obligations
ICIP argues the Commission has obviated its statutory obligations by failing to
“insure that rates and charges ...are fair,just and reasonable.”Petition at 2.Sections 6 1-301
and 61-302 of the Idaho Code,cited by ICIP,are “duties of public utilities”to set “just and
reasonable”charges,and maintain “adequate service.”Idaho Code §6 1-301,6 1-302.Sections
6 1-502 and 6 1-503,also cited by ICIP,give the Commission “power to investigate and fix rates,”
upon a motion or complaint,and determine ‘just,reasonable or sufficient rates.”Idaho Code §
61-502,61-503.ICIP has failed to demonstrate how the Commission,or the Order for which
ICIP seeks reconsideration,are in violation of these,or any other,statutory provisions.
ICIP asserts,for the first time in its Petition,that applying Rule M “only partially
fulfill[sl [the Commission’s]statutory obligation”because it “does not address the determination
of the price or terms for the sale of...facilities that are used solely by the ratepayer taking such
service.”Petition at 3,4 (emphasis added).ICIP thus contends that the Commission is
ORDER NO.33514 6
statutorily obligated to determine the “sufficiency of the price:or whether the “charges for
[Idaho Power’s]lost revenues and profits are just.reasonable or sufficient’”from the
perspective of the purchasing customer.Petition at 4.According to ICIP,the Commission
“explicitly declined to make its statutorily obligated findings with regard to the sufficiency of the
price.”Petition at 4.This argument both presupposes a non-existent statutory obligation,and
falsely asserts an “explicit”lack of findings about the sufficiency of the sales price.
ICIP identifies no legal basis to extend the Commission’s statutory duties to include
second-guessing whether the FBI negotiated a “sufficient”price in its agreement to purchase
Assets from Idaho Power.The Commission has the power and duty to ensure just,reasonable
and sufficient rates.See Idaho Code §61-502.But the Commission lacks jurisdiction to
infringe on a utility’s freedom of contract absent a finding that such contract is “inimical to the
public interest.’Aflon Energy v,Idaho Power Co.,111 Idaho 925,928,729 P.2d 400,403
(1986),see also Idaho Power Co.v.New Energy Two.156 Idaho 462,463-64.328 P.3d 442,
443-44 (2014)(“Freedom of contract is a fundamental concept underlying the law of contract
and is an essential element of the free enterprise system.”)(citations omitted).The record,Idaho
statutes and case law support the Commission’s findings here.
As indicated in Order No.33470,we are aware of no authority —and ICIP cites none
—allowing the Commission to “force a particular sale between a utility and customer.”Order No.
33470 at 6,citing Order No.32940 at 5-6.We found that the sales price in this case “was
mutually agreed upon by Idaho Power and the FBI after careful consideration of ‘all the
necessary elements for completing an equitable asset sale.”Order No.33470 at 5,6.Neither
ICIP,the FBI,nor any other party,asked the Commission to investigate the sufficiency of the
sales price from the FBI’s perspective.Indeed,ICIP has never asserted that Idaho Power’s and
the FBI’s agreed sales price is not “just,reasonable or sufficient.”In its written comments,ICIP
did not “endorse the methodology”used to calculate the price,and did “not oppose approval of
[Idaho Power’s]application.”ICIP Comments at 2.Instead,ICIP asked that the Commission
“disclaim that this docket has any precedential value in establishing any controlling rule
(explicitly or implicitly)for governing future sales of [Idaho Power]-owned facilities beyond the
customer’s POD.”Id.at 3.
In our Order,“we emphasize[d]that e do not endorse Idaho Power’s price
methodology in the Agreement approved here,as precedent going forward.”Order No.33470 at
ORDERNO.33514 7
6.We further observed that agreements like Idaho Power’s and the FBI’s “are ill-suited to,and
would not benefit from,the imposition of rules for determining a purchase price.”Id.at 5.
Thus,we stated that the Commission will evaluate applications for the sale of facilities on a
case-by-case basis.Id.at 6.
Veering outside the scope of this case,ICIP then asserts its disapproval of Order No.
32940,in Case No.IPC-E-13-17.Petition at 5.That case involved a disputed sale of assets
between Idaho Power and J,R.Simplot Company (a member of ICIP).ICIP argues that the
Commission’s solution in that case “for determining the sales price ...is no solution at all.”Id.
Although ICIP apparently disagrees with the outcome of Order No.32940,issued December 5,
2013,the deadline for seeking reconsideration of that Order has passed.We,therefore,decline
to address what amounts to an impermissible collateral attack of an Order that has become final
and conclusive as a matter of law.Idaho Code §6 1-625.
Finally.ICIP proclaims that the Commission has a statutory obligation to step up to
the plate and establish parameters for determining the price for the sale of utility assets.”
Petition at 6.Conspicuously absent is a supporting statutory citation.We find none.For these
reasons,we find that ICIP has failed to demonstrate that the Commission obviated its duties
under the Idaho Public Utilities Law.We therefore reject ICIP’s first argument because it fails
to articulate how the Cornmissions Order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in
conformity with the law.
C.Section 61-327 and 61-328
We next address ICIP’s contention that we inappropriately applied Idaho Code §61-
327 and 6 1-328 to the FBI’s purchase of Assets from Idaho Power.ICIP argues that Sections
6 1-327 and 6 1-328 preclude the sale of utility property to a single private entity not subject to
Commission-regulation.In support,ICIP quotes Section 61-327 and an Idaho Supreme Court
decision,Idaho Power Co.v.State of Idaho,104 Idaho 575.661 P.2d 741.Id.at 7-8.On closer
examination of Sections 61-327 and 61-328,we agree that they do not strictly apply in the
narrow circumstances present in this case.
Both Sections 6 1-327 and 61-328 concern the transfer of property “used in the
generation,transmission,distribution or supply of electric power and energy to the public or any
portion thereof”Idaho Code §61-327,-328 (emphasis added).We find on reconsideration
that the “any portion thereof’language in these provisions contemplates the transfer of property
ORDERNO.33514 8
that is already devoted to the public service,not a transfer of property that serves only a single
customer.That same language appears in the Idaho Public Utilities Law definition of “public
utility.”Idaho Code §61-129(1).The Idaho Supreme Court has interpreted service performed
for (or commodity delivered to)“any portion”of the public as including that “devoted to a public
use.”Stoehr v.Natatorium Co.,34 Idaho 217,221,200 P.132,133 (1921).A “portion”of the
public,for purposes of the statute,does not include utility services offered “to one person or
corporation under a contract....“Humbird Lumber Co.V.Idaho PUC,39 Idaho 505,511,228
P.271,273 (1924).
While we find that Idaho Code §6 1-327 and 6 1-328 do not apply where the property
is not already used to serve the public or a portion thereof.evaluating sales of utility assets in
light of the Section 61-328 factors has proven an effective means of protecting the public interest
and ensuring that ratepayers will not be harmed by such transactions.See e.g.Order Nos.32624,
29864,25241.We find it appropriate to consider the factors set forth in Section 61-328(3)as
guidance when evaluating a utility’s proposal to transfer assets that historically have been
devoted to serving only a single customer.Accordingly,we direct Idaho Power to file a revised
tariff Schedule M to reflect these findings.
ICIP never explains how an alternate interpretation of Idaho Code §6 1-327 and 61-
328 would require the Commission to “initiate a proceeding to establish parameters for
determining the price for the sale of Idaho Power-owned assets.”Petition at 9.ICIP has cited no
legal authority for this purported obligation,and we find none.ICIP contends that if such
parameters were established,purchasing “customers and Idaho Power will know,in advance,of
the possible dollar impact of their embarking on negations [sicj for the sale/purchase of such
assets.”Id.However,nothing in the record demonstrates that the FBI or Idaho Power desired or
would have benefited from Commission-mandated parameters in exercising their right to
contract,or in otherwise negotiating their agreement.And as already discussed,even if such
parameters were established,the utility cannot be compelled to sell its assets against its will.
Accordingly,we deny ICIP’s requested relief to initiate a proceeding.
D.The Commission’s Order Is Not Discriminatory,Arbitrary,
Nor a Sudden Departure from Prior Orders
Finally,we address ICIP’s argument that our “treatment of [thej sale of utility-owned
assets on the customer side of the meter”is “discriminatory”and an “arbitrary abdication of the
ORDER NO.33514 9
Commission’s duties.”Petition at 8-9.According to ICIP,Order No.33470 presents a sudden
and unexplained “departure from historic Commission precedent,”and allows “Idaho Power to
unilaterally determine the sales price,and charge for lost revenues and profits.”Id.at 8.ICIP
further asserts that “[airbitrary changes of Commission policy with no explanation or rationale
are contrary to the Commission’s obligations to set fair,just,reasonable and non-discriminatory
rates.”id.at 9.ICIP’s dramatic rhetoric is again devoid of citation to statutory authority,and
belied by the actual language of Order No.33470,as well as the prior Orders cited by ICIP.
As already discussed,we found that the sales price in this matter was “mutually
agreed upon by Idaho Power and the FBI after careful consideration.”Order No.33470 at 6.
Thus,it was not “unilaterally determine[dJ”by Idaho Power.ICIP has not articulated a cogent
argument that the Order is “discriminatory,”and we find no basis to further explore ICIP’s vague
assertion of the same.Petition at 8;see Bach v.Bagley,148 Idaho 784,790,229 P.3d 1146,
1152 (2010)(courts will not consider issues unsupported by argument and authority).Regarding
pricing methodology,we explained,“The circumstances of any given agreement between a
utility and customer for the purchase of utility-owned assets are unique.”Order No.33470 at 6.
We also recognized that negotiations between a utility and customer for such a voluntary
agreement are incompatible with rules dictating the sales price.Id.at 5.
Prior Commission Orders cited by ICIP do not,as ICIP argues,establish a pricing
methodology to which we are bound in this case.The language that ICIP cites from Order No.
31007 is a summary of Staff’s position in that case.Petition at 8,citing Order No.31007 at 2.In
the Commission’s findings and decision,it applied Idaho Code §61-328 and found the “terms
and conditions of the parties’Agreement ...to be just,reasonable and in the public interest.”
Order No.31007 at 3.In Order No.29864,also referenced by ICIP,the Commission found the
“transaction meets the requirements of Idaho Code §61-328,”as it did not “cause any increase
in rates,”the purchasing entity would “be able to maintain ...facilities necessary to serve its
tenants,”and the sale would “serve the public interest.”Order No.29864 at 3-4.Nothing in
those Commissions Orders is inconsistent with Order No.33470.Further,the Commission has
previously stated,“we envision that the sale of facilities will occur on a case-by-case basis.”
Order No.32426 at 32-3 3.
Even if our Order here departed from a past decision,such departure alone is no basis
for finding error.“[RJegulatory bodies perform legislative as well as judicial functions in their
ORDER NO.33514 10
proceedings,[thus]they are not so rigorously bound by the doctrine of stare decisis that they
must decide all future cases in the same way as they have decided similar cases in the past.”
Order No.32755 at 12,quoting McNeai v.Idaho PUC,142 Idaho 685,690,132 P.3d 442,447
(2006);Idaho Power Co.v.Idaho PUC,155 Idaho 780,788,316 P.3d 1278,1286 (2013).So
long as the Commission adequately explains its departure,‘orders based upon positions
substantially different than those taken in previous proceedings can be upheld.”Order No.
33419 at 24,quoting Intermountain Gas Co.v.Idaho PUC,97 Idaho 113,119,540 P.2d 775,
781 (1975).Here,our Final Order is neither a departure from past decisions,nor was it
inadequately explained.Accordingly,we reject ICIP’s argument that Order No.33470 is
discriminatory,arbitrary and a sudden departure from prior Orders.
There being no legal obligation for the Commission to open a separate docket,as
requested by ICIP in this case,the Commission’s decision regarding ICIP’s request was
discretionary.As demonstrated herein,the Commission exercised its discretion and made a
reasoned decision rejecting the request.Order No.33470 at 6.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,we find that although Section 61-328 does not strictly
apply to transfers of utility assets used by a single customer,it is appropriate to use Section 61 -
328(3)as guidance in similar future transactions.We direct Idaho Power to update its Rule M
accordingly.We otherwise affirm our prior Order No.33470 approving Idaho Power’s asset
transfer with the FBI.We further affirm our denial of ICIP’s request to initiate a separate
proceeding.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ICIP’s Petition is granted in part and denied in part,
as more fully explained in the body of this Order.We affirm our approval of Idaho Power
Company’s Application to transfer assets to the FBI.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power amend its Rule M as set out above.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved by this
Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.IPC-E-15-26 may
appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules.See Idaho Code §6 1-627.
ORDERNO.33514 II
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of May 2016.
ATTEST:
PAU KJELL ND,PESIDENT
/1$/4
J1étn D.Jewell()
C6mmission Scretary
O:IPC-E-15-26 cijh6 Final Reconsideration
ERIC ANDERSON,COMMISSIONER
ORDERNO.33514 12