20160421Objection to Petition.pdf

JULIA A. HILTON
Senior Counsel
ihi [e-mail]
April21,2016
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ldaho 83702
Re:
,\Ja
:F.-tr /(,l
4 tt!rrl C)rn
=.T' \\3m-c- u
(Jt(e
Case No. IPC-E-16-07
Mobile Manor Mobile Home Park
Company's Motion in Opposition to
Power's Petition to lntervene
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing in the above matter please find an original and seven (7)
copies of ldaho Power Company's Motion in Opposition to the lndustrial Customers of
ldaho Power's Petition to lntervene.
Very truly yours,
t-L?{,{
Julia A. Hilton
JAH:csb
Enclosures
3Effi*.
An IDACORP Companv
Meter Pedestals ldaho Power
the lndustrial Customers of ldaho
'1221 W. ldaho 5t. (83702)
PO. Box 70
Boise, lD 83707
JULIA A. HILTON (lSB No. 7740)
Idaho Power Company
1221West ldaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ldaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
i hi lton@ idahopower. com
Attorney for ldaho Power Company
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORIW TO TRANSFER TITLE OF
MOBILE MANOR MOBILE HOME PARK
METER PEDESTALS.
TiECEIVED
2016 AFR 2l PH tr: tr9
' 'il:'! ia, -. , l- 1. l-lVI " ii I ;:;:'r i,i,\l..ii{lSSlOtl
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO. !PC-E-16-07
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF
IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO
!NTERVENE
Pursuant to Rule of Procedure 75, ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Powe/' or
"Company") hereby moves the ldaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") to
issue an order denying the Petition to lntervene filed by the lndustria! Customers of
ldaho Power ('lClP") in this proceeding.
ln support of this Motion, ldaho Power states as follows:
1. On April 14,2016, lClP filed a Petition to lntervene ("!CIP's Petition") as
well as its First Production Requestto ldaho Powerin Case No. IPC-E-16-07. ldaho
Power hereby objects to the intervention of lClP in the present case, which asks for
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION lN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO ]NTERVENE - 1
Commission approval for transfer of title for 18 meter pedestals located in the Mobile
Manor Mobile Home Park, including the Mobile Manor Subdivision, Mobile Manor First
Addition, and Mobile Manor Second Addition (collectively, "Mobile Manor") in Pocatello,
ldaho. This objection is filed pursuant to Procedural Rule 75, which states that any
party opposing a petition to intervene must do so by motion in opposition filed within
seven days after receipt of the petition to intervene.
2. lClP's Petition should be denied because (1) lClP has no direct or
substantial interest in this proceeding as required by Procedural Rule 72, (2) lClP's
involvement in this case will cause unnecessary confusion of the issues, and (3) lClP's
involvement in this case wil! cause additional and costly delay and unnecessarily and
unduly expand the scope of the issues in the case, which is not allowed under
Procedural Rule 74.
3. A petition to intervene must set forth a "direct and substantial interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding." Proc. Rule 72. A petition to intervene is granted,
subject to reasonable conditions, if it "shows direct and substantial interest in any part of
the subject matter of a proceeding and does not unduly broaden the issues." Proc. Rule
74.
4. lClP has no direct or substantial interest in this proceeding as required by
Procedural Rule 72. ICIP's Petition states that its members are interested in the
administration and application of ldaho Power's rules, policies, and practices relating to
ldaho Power facilities beyond the point of delivery. Particularly, as those relate to ldaho
Power-owned facilities beyond the point of delivery, which lClP argued in Case No.
IPC-E-15-26. A general interest in ldaho Power's rules, policies, and practices is on its
face an indirect interest in a proceeding, and certainly does not rise to the level of "direct
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 2
or substantial interest" as required by Procedural Rule 72. The transaction in this case
deals with a residentia! customer and will not impact industrial customers, directly or
indirectly.
5. lClP's involvement in this case will unnecessarily confuse the issues. ln
its discovery requests, lClP is requesting a comparison between two very different types
of facilities (meter pedestals for residential customers as compared to Company-owned
facilities beyond the point of delivery for Rule M customers), which will unduly broaden
the scope of the proceeding contrary to Procedural Rule 74. ln this case, ldaho Power
is requesting authority to transfer title of certain specific residential meter pedestals
within a mobile home park to the owner of 18 different lots within the park. Starting in
1981, meter pedestals (the mobile home park equivalent of meter bases) have been
owned by the owner of the underlying land, but meter pedestals installed prior to 1981
are still owned by the Company. Meter bases for residentia! homes are owned by the
homeowner for all ldaho Power residential customers. Due to the long-term expense
associated with maintaining and repairing the pedestals and in order to promote
consistency in ownership of meter bases and pedestals across residential customer
classes, ldaho Power seeks to transfer title of Company-owned pedestals when
possible.
6. lClP's First Production Request indicates its apparent reason for
intervention: An attempt to compare the transfer of residential meter pedestals to the
sale of Company-owned facilities beyond the point of delivery for Facilities Charge
Service customers under Rule M. Rule M has limited applicability: it applies to (1)
customers who fall under Schedule 9 (Large General Service), Schedule 19 (Large
Power Service), Special Contract, or Transmission Service customers under Schedule
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 3
24 (Agricultural Irrigation Service); (2) customers taking primary or transmission service;
and (3) customers who choose a facilities charge arrangement. Facilities charge
customers under Rule M are typically large customers with specific electricity needs
who are responsible for facilities beyond the point of delivery. To solely serve an
individual Rule M customer's specific needs, at the Rule M customer's request, the
Company often agrees to install new and different facilities beyond the point of delivery
in exchange for a facilities charge. Such a comparison between two types of facilities
and customers, if taken to its conclusion, would unduly expand the scope of the case far
beyond the Company's simple request to transfer title of 18 meter pedestals to a
residential customer.
7. Furthermore, these meter pedestals are not Company-owned facilities
beyond the point of delivery; they are the point of delivery. See Rule B ("Point of
Delivery is the junction point between facilities owned by the Company and the facilities
owned by the Customer . .'). The point of delivery, which now occurs in residential
meters, exists within the pedestal in pre-1981 meter pedestals. There is no reasonable
comparison between the transfer of title for 18 residential meter pedestals and a large-
scale customer desiring to purchase specialized equipment which ldaho Power installed
for the customer's sole purpose under a facilities charge arrangement.
8. lClP's Petition alleges that there may be a potential discriminatory impact
in this transfer of title. There will be no discriminatory impact because al! customers
within a customer class are treated similarly. All residential transfers of meter pedestals
are treated similarly, and have absolutely no association or impact on sales involving
Rule M facilities beyond the point of delivery. As with all utility service, reasonable
differences occur between different rate classes. ldaho Sfafe Homebuilders v.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 4
Washington Water Power,107 ldaho 415, 690 P.2d 350 (1984). Residentia! customers
do not require specialized equipment like specific large-scale customers, nor do they
pay a facilities charge; thus, they are governed by different rules.
9. lClP's Petition alleges that the issues raised in this proceeding may have
a material impact on rates its members pay for electric service. The transfer of 18
meter pedestals will not create a material impact on rates that any customer class pays
for service. ldaho Code S 61-328 governs the Commission approva! of sale of property
and requires a Commission finding that the "cost of and rates for supplying service will
not be increased by reason of such transaction." ldaho Power must prove and the
Commission must accept that rates will not increase; therefore, in order to meet the
requirements of the law goveming the transaction, this transfer cannot have a mateial
impact on rates for customers, including other customers in the residential rate class or
customers, Iike lClP members, that belong to a different rate class. As described in the
Application, elimination of the long-term maintenance and repair costs of continued
utility ownership of outdated meter pedestals outweighs the minimal costs to update
them prior to the transfer of title.l No material impact on rates for any customer class
will occur, and the legal requirements for Commission approval of the transaction
prevent potentialfor any such occurrence.
10. lt is ldaho Power's understanding that lClP generally disputes the
Company's Rule M methodology for calculation of a purchase price for Company-owned
facilities beyond the point of delivery. lClP has already raised its concerns and
' ldaho Powe/s preliminary estimates show that costs to update the pedestals prior to transfer of
title may be approximately $500-$600 per pedestal. Because the long{erm maintenance and repair costs
of continued utility ownership would outweigh this updating expense, the total cost to update 18 pedestals
will not have a material impact on any customer class and will not impact rates.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 5
requested a generic docket to determine Rule M pricing methodology in Case No.
IPC-E-15-26; the parties are currently awaiting an order on reconsideration. lClP's
attempt to raise industrial customers' concerns in this case unduly expands the scope of
the issues to tangential and indirect concerns. lClP is not without means with which to
address the issues it feels are relevant to its member's concerns, and it is not necessary
for it to intervene in Mobile Manor's case in order to be heard.
11. ICIP's involvement will cause unnecessary delay to the process and
confusion of the issues. ln addition to filing its Petition to lntervene, lClP filed a set of
discovery requests. This alone, without even considering the substance of its
production requests, introduces additional time and delay to the proceedings.
Additionally, there are objectionable issues regarding the substance of lClP's requests,
all of which will introduce additional delay and issues into this case.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, because this transaction will have no direct or substantial impact
on Idaho Power's industria! customers, and allowing the intervention will cause undue
delay, unnecessary confusion of the issues, and unduly expand the scope of the
proceedings, ldaho Power respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order
denying lClP's Petition to lntervene in this matter. ldaho Power also requests that the
Commission suspend deadlines associated with lClP's discovery request in this case
untilthe Commission has ruled on lClP's intervention request.
Respectfully submitted at Boise, tdaho, this 21st day of Apri! 2016.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 6
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21't day of April 2016 I served a true and
correct copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION lN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE upon
the following named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the
following:
Commission Staff
Daphne Huang
Deputy Attorney General
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ldaho 83720-OOl 4
Industrial Customers of ldaho Power
Peter J. Richardson
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
515 North 27th Street (83702)
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, ldaho 83707
Dr. Don Reading
6070 Hill Road
Boise, Idaho 83703
X Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAXX Email [e-mail]
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF IDAHO POWER'S PETITION TO INTERVENE - 7