20171117reconsideration_order_no_33928.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 17,2017
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )CASE NO.IPC-E-16-28
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A )
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC )ORDER NO.33928
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO )
CONSTRUCT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS )
FOR WOOD RIVER VALLEY )
CUSTOMERS )
In November 2016,Idaho Power Company filed an Application for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to construct a second transmission line in the Wood River Valley.
The Commission granted seven intervention petitions,including one from Kiki Tidwell.Order
No.33675.The Commission conducted a public hearing on July 26,2017,and a technical
hearing on August 8,2017,both of which were attended by Ms.Tidwell and her counsel,Peter
Richardson.At the conclusion of the technical hearing,Chair Anderson set a deadline of August
22,2017 for intervenor fundingrequests.
On September 15,2017,the Commission issued Final Order No.33872 granting the
Company's Application and granting Sierra Club's timely intervenor funding request.On
September 20,2017,Kiki Tidwell filed a late request for intervenor funding.'On October 12,
2017,the Commission denied Ms.Tidwell's request as untimely.Order No.33906.Mr.
Richardson withdrew as Ms.Tidwell's counsel on October 17,2017.On October 25,2017,Ms.
Tidwell filed a timely petition asking the Commission to reconsider its decision denying her
request for intervenor funding.We now deny Ms.Tidwell's petition.
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Reconsideration provides an opportunity for a party to bring to the Commission's
attention any issue previouslydetermined,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).Under Commission Rule 331.01,"Petitions for
reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that
the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable,unlawful,erroneous or not in
conformitywith the law...."IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01.
'Although Ms.Tidwell filed the petition herself,Mr.Richardson confirmed that his office still represented her at the
time.
ORDER NO.33928 1
MS.TIDWELL'S PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ms.Tidwell asserts the Commission should reconsider its denial of her request for
intervenor funding for two reasons.First,she argues her request "was timely as it was submitted
during the period that a petition for reconsideration could have been submitted"regarding the
Commission's Final Order No.33872.Petition for Reconsideration at 1.Second,she argues the
Commission "failed to provide a fair proceeding by failing to provide adequate information
about Section 61-617a [the statute providing for intervenor funding]to intervenors."Id
COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
In denying Ms.Tidwell's request for intervenor funding,we noted that it "was received
almost a month after the deadline."Order No.33906 at 2.AlthoughMs.Tidwell now asserts
her request for intervenor ftmding was timely,she stated in her intervenor funding request,"I
apologize that this request is being submitted late due [to]the lack of communication to me that
this compensation was available to me as an Intervenor."Late Request for Intervenor Funding at
2.Commission Rule 164 provides,"Unless otherwise provided by order,an intervenor
requesting intervenor funding must apply no later than fourteen (14)days after the last
evidentiary hearing in a proceeding."IDAPA 31.01.01.164.The evidentiary hearing took place
August 8,2017,thus the deadline for intervenor funding requests was August 22 per Rule 164.
Moreover,Chair Anderson gave explicit notice to all parties at the conclusion of the technical
hearing,including Ms.Tidwell and her counsel,about the deadline for intervenor funding
requests.Transcript at 686;Order No.33906 at 2.Consequently,we find no reasonable basis
for reconsideration of our prior decision finding Ms.Tidwell's request for intervenor funding
untimely.We thus deny Ms.Tidwell's petition for reconsideration.
ORDER NO.33928 2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ms.Tidwell's Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION.Any party aggrieved by
this Order may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the
Idaho Appellate Rules.See Idaho Code §61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this /
day of November 2017.
PAUL K (V AÑlí .PRESIDENT
K 5 OMMISSIONER
ERK'ANDERSON,('OMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
Diane M.Hanian
Commission Secretary
1:\LeganLORDERS\lPCE1628 djhó TidwellOrderdoc
ORDER NO.33928