20191113Staff Brief.pdf

EDWARD J. JEWELL (lSB No. 10446)
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Tele: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO )
STUDYTHE,COSTS,BENEFITS,AND )
COMPENSATION OF'NI'T EXCESS )
ENERGYSUPPLIEDBYCUSTOMER )
ON.SITE GENERATION )
F]:C EIVED
;,, ricY r 3 PH L: 29
a arl,,!iil.,sl0N
CASE NO. IPC-E-I8.15
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION
STAFF REGARDING F]XISTING
CUSTOMERS WITH ON.SITE
GENERATION
Strect Address for Express Mail
I l33l W. Chinden Blvd.
Building 8, Suite 201 -A
Boise, Idaho 83714
Attomey for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Pursuanr to Order No. 321460, Staff of rhe Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Stafl')
submits the following brief.
I. Background and Introduction,
The IPC-E- l8- l5 Settlement Agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), if approved by the
Commission, would fundamentally restructure the net-metering service offered by Idaho Power
Company ("Idaho Power" or "Compzury"). Under the existing net-metering program, which has
been in place since at least 1997, Idaho Power customers have been able to net I kilowatt hour
('kwh") of energy produced against I kWh of energy consumed, netted monthly, and have been
able to carry forward the credits indefinitely ("1:I monthly netting").r Order No. 26750. Under
the proposed net-metering program, Idaho Power customers could net on an hourly basis, with net
I Staff uses ''t:l monthly netting" as shonhand for the currcntly approved residential and small general service net-
mctering tariffs, Schedule 6 and Schedule 8. Staff intends the term "l:l monthly netting" to incorporate all of the
currently approved terms in Schedule 6 and Schedule 8,
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF I
hourly exports compensated at an Export Credit Rate. The Export Crcdit Rate is based on an
avoided-cost methodology, which holds non-participants in the program harmless for program
costs. The Commission has at times modified elements of the Company's net-metering program,
such as implementing a project size cap and implementing and removing an overall system cap,
but the Comm.ission has never before altered the fundamental nature of the service off'ering. See
Order Nos. 32846, 34046.
One aspect ofthe Company's net-metering program that the Settlement Agreement did
not resolve was whether its terms would apply to existing customers with on-site generation
("Existing Customers"), or whether its terms would only apply to new customers ("New
Customers"). Parties to the Settlement Agreement ("Parties") recognize there is a legal question
regarding whether the Commission may treat Existing Customers differently than New Customers;
or whether doing so would be illegal discrimination. See a/so Order No. J4046 at 24. The Parties
agreed to submit this issue to the Commission separately from the Settlement Agreement, and
agreed to be bound by the Settlement Agreement, if approved by the Commission, regardless of
the Commission's determination on whether the Settlement Agreement applies to Existing
Customers. Sze IPC-E- l 8- I 5 Settlement Agreement, Section lX. The Settlement Agreement does
not define an Existing Customer.
Staff first lays out its legal analysis, which argues that the Commission may-under
Idaho law and based on the specific facts of this case-reasonably treat Existing Customers
differently from New Customers. Next, Staff argues that an eight-year grace period for Existing
Customers would appropriately balance the interests between Existing Customers and all non-
participants in the program. Finally, Staff recommends that an Existing Customer be defined as:
I ) a current Schedule 6 or Schedule 8 customer; or 2) a person or entity who has submitted an on-
site generation application to Idaho Power by the filing date of the Settlement Agreement, which
was October ll,2019.
II. The Commission May Properly Establish and Maintain Rates That Recognize
Reasonable Differences Between or Among Classes of Service,
The Commission is "vested with power andjurisdiction to supervise and regulate every
public utility in the state and to do all things necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of [The
Public Utilities Lawl;' Idaho Code $ 6l-501. The Commission has wide discretion to establish
and maintain rates charged by public utilities, so long as they are not "unjust, unreasonable,
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF )
discriminatory or preferential, or in any wise in violation of any provision of law . . ." Idaho Code
$ 61-s02.
The scope of review of a Commission Order appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court is
narrow. See e.g., Grindstone Butte, Etc. v. kluho Puh. Util. Comm'n, 102 Idaho 175,627 P.2d
804, 807 (1981). Ieluho Code i 6l-629 states, "The review on appeal shall not be extended further
than to determine whether the commission has regularly pursued its authority, including a
determination of whether the order appealed from violates any right of the appellant under the
constitution of the United States of the state of ldaho." The Commission is a creature of statute
and must stay within its delegated authority, but if the Commission is not acting contrary to law,
the Court shows the Commission's decisions deference. "kr reviewing findings of fact we will
sustain a Commission's determination unless it appears that the clear weight of the evidence is
against its conclusion or that the evidence is strong and persuasive that the Commission abused its
discretion." Utah-ldaho Sugar v. lntermountain Gas Co.,100 Idaho 368, 597 P.2d 1058, 1066
(t979).
Whether rates are just and reasonable, and not preferential or discriminatory, depends
upon whether reasonable differences justify setting different rates.
No public utility shall, as to rates, charges, service, facilities or in
any other respect, make or grant any preference or advantage to any
corporation or person or subject any corporation or person to any
prejudice or disadvantage. No public utility shall establish or
maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service,
facilities or in any other respect, either as between localities or as
between classes of service. The commission shall have the power
to determine any question of fact arising under this section.
Idaho Code S 6l-315 (emphasis added). Idaho Supreme Court case law gives examples of
reasonable differences that can support differential treatment. "Any such difference
(discrimination) in a utility's rates and charges must be justihed by a coresponding classification
of customers that is based upon factors such as cost of service, quantity of electricity used,
differences in conditions of service, or the time, nature and pattern of the use." Idttho Stute
Homebuilders v. Wushington Water Power, I07 Idaho 415,690 P.2d 350, 355 (1984). The "such
as" indicates this is a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when determining whether
differing rates are based on unreasonable differences. See FMC Corporation v. Idaho Pub. Util.
Comm'n.,104 Idaho 265,658 P.2d 936, 948 (1983) (stating, "Each case must depend very largely
upon its own special facts, and every element and every circumstance which increases or
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 3
depreciates the value ofthe property, or ofthe service rendered, should be given due consideration,
and allowed that weight to which it is cntitled." (citations omitted); See also Grindstone Butte,
Etc.,62l P.2d at 809 (stating, "We find such criteria as being valid considerations for rate
differentiation as between classes of service, whether those classes be as between schedules or as
between customers within a schedule. We do not find one criterion to be necessarily more essential
than another. Nor do we find the criteria as listed above as being exclusive.").
The factors enumerated by the Court in ldaho State Homebutlders, Grindstone Butte,
I:MC Corp., and, related cases, address the discrete facts before the Court in those cases. The Court
did not, and could not, attempt to address facts that had not yet arisen. Importantly, the bi-
directional relationship ofa customer to the grid, and the substantial personal investment made by
a customer in an on-site generation system that has benefits to the Company's system, were not
factors that existed when the Court decided these cases. The factors listed by the Supreme Coun
are explicitly not exhaustive and indicate that each case's unique facts must be considered. Factors
that increase or decrease the value of the property or of the service should be given due
consideration. FMC Corp.,658 P.2dat 948 citing Application of Boise Water Corp.,82 IdahoBl,
349 P.2d 7l r (1960).
The reference in ldaho State Homebuilders to a "corresponding classification of
customers" does not mean that the Commission must establish a different schedule in order to
acknowledge reasonable dift'erences among customers. Rather, the Court acknowledged that
klaho Code $ 6 I -3 l5 applies to inter- and intra-class differences.
We have found justification for rate discrimination as between
customers within a schedule and as between customers in different
schedules. Grindstone Butte Mutual Canal Co. v. Idaho Pub. Util.
Comm'n, 102 Idaho 175,627 P.2d 804 (1981)t UtahJdaho Sugar
Co. t,. Intenrutuntain Gas Co., supra. We have upheld as justified a
demand charge applicable only to large volume, non-intem.rptible
gas customers, Utah-ldaho Sugar Co. v. lntermountain Gas Co.,
supra, and a 19.69c increase for high volume-high load factor pump
irrigators at one end of a schedule and a 34.5Vc decrease for low
volume-low load factor customers at the other end. Grindstone
Butle, supru.
Idaho State Homebuilders, 690 P.2d at 42O. ln Grindstone Butte, the Court similarly stated that
classes can be between customers in a schedule. 621 P.2d at 809. More recently, in 2011, the
Court reaffirmed there can be different rates among a class of customers. Building Contructors v.
Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n, l5l Idaho 10,253 P.3d 684,689 (201l).
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 4
Thus, Idaho Code i 6l-315, when read as interpreted by the Idaho Supreme Court,
prohibits the Commission from establishing or maintaining unreasonable differences in rates
between or among classes of customers. The Commission thus has the discretion to acknowledge
reasonable differences among a class of customers and establish different rates for some members
of thc class.
III. Idaho Supreme Court Case Law That Prohibits Undue Discrimination Against New
Customers Does Not Answer Whether the Commission May Reasonably Set Different
Rates for Existing Customers Who Made a Significant Investment.
The Idaho Supreme Court has been clear that the Commission cannot reasonably assign
costs solely to new users when all users helped create the need fbr the additional costs. In /dnlro
State Homebuilders, the Idaho Supreme Coufi overturned a Commission decision to apply a $50
per kilowatt fee to Washington Water Power customers who decided to install electric space
heating alter March I , 1980.
Here, the Commission found that customers choosing electricity for
space heating purposes contributed most to Washington Water
Power's needs to invest in expensive new generating facilities.
Therein since the charges were only imposed on new customers, the
Commission evidently assumed that only 'new' customers were
responsible for the level ofdcmand, but that premise has no basis in
either the record or in economic theory.
Idaho State Homebuilders,690 P.2d at 356. The Court found no justifiable reason to impose
additional costs on new customers that were not imposed on existing cuslomers because the Court
found that all customers contributed equally to the need for new investment in generating
resources. This does not answer the question currently in front ofthe Commission.
Likewise, Boise Wuter Corp. does not address the issue now before the Comm.ission.
ln Boise Water Corp., the same question was posed to the Idaho Supreme Court as in ldaho State
Homebuilders; may the Commission require new cuslomers to pay for additional facilities without
requiring existing customers to shoulder some of the burden when both new and existing customers
contributed to the need for the additional facilities? The answer is clearly no. Boise Water Corp.
v, ldaho Pub. Util. Comm'n, I28 ldaho 534,916 P.zd, 1259, 1264 (1996) (stating, "Each new
customer that has come into the system at any time has contributed to the need for new facilities.
No particular group of customers should bear the burden of additional expense occasioned by
changes in federal law that impose new water quality standards.")
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 5
A host of legal, equitable, and policy factors were not prcscnt in ldaho State
Homebuilders or Boise Water Corp. that exist here. In this case, large personal investments have
already been made by Existing Customers, whereas in the previous cases, the investments had not
yet been made. Also, the personal investments in ldaho State Homebuilders, had they been made,
would have contributed to greater overalI utility system costs. In the present case, in contrast, thc
personal investments in on-site generation systems can help to reduce or defer utility investment
in infrastructure Ihat would otherwise end up in rate base and be spread among customers.
The Commission, in the underlying docket for ldaho State Honrebuilders, substituted
its preferred solution (the nonrecurring $50 per kW fee for new space heating) for the solution
proposed by Washington Water Power, which was to introduce higher winter seasonal rates to
discourage consumption during the systcrn pcak. The Comrnission's imposition of its own
preferred solution, which was not advocated for by the parties to the proceeding, put the
Commission's Order on different footing before the Idaho Supreme Court. Here, if the
Commission approved a different treatment for Existing Customers, it would be doing so at the
urging of numerous intervenors and the vast majority of public commenters.
IV. The Commission Can Determine Whether Reasonable l-actual Differences Justify
Different Rates for Existing Customers.
The Commission is the trier of fact under ldaho Code $ 6l-315. It is within the
Commission's authority to determine whether there are reasonable factual differences between
investments made by Existing Custorners in some reliance on l: I monthly netting and investments
to be made by New Customers under the proposed net-metering program structure.
Staff believes that Existing Customers reasonably relied on a [ongstanding and widely
understood program structure when making their investments in on-site generation. Staff
recognizes that the Commission and Commission Staff have long expressed concerns that l:l
monthly netting overcompensates customers with on-site generation for the value of the resource
they are contributing to the grid. See Order Nos. 28951 at 12, IPC-E-01-39 Commission Staff
Comments at 3-4, IPC-E-17-13 Morrison, Di at 12. Staff believes that the Settlement Agreement
adequately addresses this issue going forward.
The Commission has also long recognized that customers should have the opportunity
to offset their own load and energy requirements with on-site generation. Order Nos.26750,28951
at ll, 32880 at 3. The Commission has established and maintained the right of Idaho Power
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 6
customers to construct on-site generation behind their meters and to receive l:l monthly netting
for over 20 years. Sec Order Nos. 26750,289-51, 32846, 34046. The Commission, therefore,
should recognize the investments by Existing Customers under l: I monthly netting as reasonably
different, or as a different condition of service, from investments made by New Customers under
net hourly billing with exports valued at the Export Credit Rate.
Staff also recognizes that the Commission has repeatedly said that tariffs are not
contracts and that they are subject to change. See Order Nos. 3228O at 4 (stating, "[T]he
Commission reminds customers that net metering is a tariff rate. There is no contract associated
with the service and rates are subject to change depending on luture Commission decisions.");
34335 at 2 (stating, "We reiterate: Rates and rate structures are always subject to change."). Staff
believes that customers largely do understand that rates for consumption change, and those making
invcstments in on-site generation likely evaluated the economics of their on-site generation
investment over a range of possible future rates for consumption, including lutures with rate
increases. Numerous comments reflect customers making an economic decision on the
understanding that it would limit their economic exposure to increasing rates during retirement,
when their income is tlxed; thus showing an understanding that rates do change coupled with a
belief that the fundamentals of net metering would remain in place for the foreseeable future. A
customer has plenty offactors to consider when deciding to purchase an on-site generation system
without having to be expected to accurately handicap the likely outcome of regulatory proceedings.
Staff believes that anticipating changes in retail rates differs from reasonably predicting the
wholesale restructuring of thc Company's on-site generation offering.
Even if one assumes that customers considering the purchase ol an on-site generation
system understood l:l monthly netting was not guaranteed, they could nol have predicted the
details or timing ofthe changes. When the timing and proposed program structure began to emerge
in conhdential settlement negotiations, Parties were precluded from discussing those details with
the public. Without discussing the details of confidential settlement negotiations here, Staff thinks
it is fair to say that the Settlement Agreement represents significant movement from the Parties'
original positions, and that no party could have accurately predicted the result of the Settlement
Agreement from the outset, or even whether settlement could be achieved. Staff thanks the Parties
for their candor and earnest work toward compromise in the settlement negotiations.
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 7
V. The Commission Should Implement a Limited Duration Grace Period That Would
Accomplish Many of the Goals of Grandfathering While Winding Down the
Economic Burden Rorne by Non-participants.
StatT undcrstands that continuing to allow l:l monthly netting will impact non-
participating customers. Staffbelieves that the impact to non-participants is properly mitigated by
an eight-year grace period for Existing Customers, and the overall impact to non-participants is
well within the Commission's discretion to set reasonable rates. Because the Commission began
addressing the cost-shifting to non-participants issue while the cost shift issue was still relatively
small, any costs pickcd up by non-participants to fund the ongoing 1: I monthly netting of Existing
Custoners for a lirnited period would be very small.
Staff's recommendation to provide a grace period for Existing Customers was informed
by customer comments in this case. Of the hundreds of customer comments to the Commission,
the vast majority support grandfathering Existing Customers. Staff's proposal responds to the
main thrust of concerns expressed in public comments. But, Staff's position is distinct from
grandfathering becausc it docs not advocate for difl'erent treatment in perpetuity; Staff asks for a
grace period for a reasonable amount of time to hclp balance the interests.
a. The Commission Should Consider the Relative Impact on Existing Customers
in Relation to the Impact on Non-participants in the Program.
The economic impact of the Settlement Agreement on customers who invested in an
on-site generation system based on l:1 monthly netting is quite large compared to the impact on
non-participants, which is quite small. Data fiom Idaho Power's 2017 Net Metering Report,:
suggests that the then-current cost shift from participants to non-participants was 0.0237o of
residential class revenues, which is almost imperceptible in individual customer rates and is
dwarfed by other, much larger rate-making inequities.s Because the issues of l:l monthly netting
have largely been resolvcd by the Settlement Agreement going forward, and because the
Commission addressed the issue while it was small, and because of the balance of the equities
between Existing Customers and non-participants, Staff believes an cight-year grace period is a
reasonable burden for non-participants to bear.
r This is Idaho Powcr's most reccnt net-metering antrual repon that quantifies this subsidy. While the number ofon-
site generation customers has grown since then. so have residential class felenues,
r ldaho Power's Fixcd Cost Rccovery repo ,llled September 30, 2019, shows that residcntial customers are paying
approximately $19.3 million annually above their cos(-ot-service, which means they are providing a significant
subsidy to other customer classcs.
8BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF
Staff believes l:l monthly netting should only be retained for Existing Customers lbr
as long a-s that customer maintains an account with Idaho Power at their cunent location. If an
Existing Customer moves residences, Staff proposes that the 'l :l monthly netting would end. It
would not follow that customer to a new building, nor would it be transfcrrcd to the next customer
at that building.
b. The Commission Should Consider an Eight-year Gracc Period Based on a
Preponderance of the Evidence.
Staff believes that eight years is a reasonable amount of time that allows Existing
Customers to budget and prepare for the significant changes to their utility bilts. White an eight-
year period will not provide the long-term investment stability these customers seek, it will give
Existing Customers time to make financial adjustments rather than having changes imposed upon
them merely tw'o to three months after the terms ol'the Settlement Agreement have been publicly
disclosed. An eight-year graoe period is also similar to what PacifiCorp has proposed in its Idaho
net-metering case, PAC-E-19-08, where it recommended a ten-year grandfathering period.
Finally, an eight-year grace period aligns with the eight-year transition period proposed in the
Settlement Agreement. Under Staffs proposal, at the end ofeight years both Existing Customers
and New Customers would be subject to the Settlemenl Agreement, and any subsequent
Commission-approved modifications to the Settlement Agrcement. Aligning the grace period and
the transition period provides administrative clarity and efficiency.
Last, Staff believes that the transition period in the proposed Settlement Agreement is
not a substitute for the eight-year grace period StafYproposes lbr Existing Customers. Ifincluded
under the Settlement Agreement, Existing Customers would transition from I :1 monthly netting
to hourly netting at the Export Credit Rate in 25% reductions every other year tbr the next eight
years, representing a distinctly different value proposition than what they planned for. Further,
under the Settlement Agreement, the Expo( Credit Rate can no longer offset the Fixed Cost
Adjustment, the Energy Efticiency Rider, or the franchise fees on existing customers' bilts, which
also reduces the value ofthe Export Credit Rate.
VI. Thc Commission Should Define an Existing Customcr as a Person or Entity Who
Has Submitted an On-site Generation Application by Octobcr I l, 2019.
StafT proposes that an Existing Customcr bc dcfined as a current Schedulc 6 or
Schedulc 8 customer, or a person or cntity who has submitted an on-site generation application
with Idaho Power as o1'the filing date of the Settlement Agreement, which was October I l, 201 9.
BRIEF OF]'HE COMMISSIoN S'I'AFF 9
This date is reasonable because it is the first date that the public was notified of the proposed
program structure in the Settlement Agreement. Staff also proposes those customers who have
filed an on-site generation application be given one year from the feasibility review for completion
before their application expires. This one-year period aligns with the Company's curent on-site
generation intercofflection and application requirements detailed in Schedule 72. Aligning the
definition of Existing Customer with the filing date of the Settlement Agreement prevents a "run
on the bank" scenario, lut also allows customers who made substantial commitments a time-
limited measure of certainty on their investment.
VII. Conclusion.
Staff believes the Commission has the authority, based on the distinct I'acts of this case
and the controlling law, to grant an eight-year grace period to Existing Customers. Staffbelieves
the Commission should do so because it was reasonable for Existing Customers to have some
reliance on 1:l monthly netting, and the impact to non-participants would be minimal. Stafl
believes there was reasonable notice to customers on October 11, 2019, the date the Settlement
Agreement was filed and made public, that the longstanding 1:1 monthly netting program was
likely to change dramatically.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this i9rdu, of November, 2019.
L(
Ed
Deputy ey General
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 1O
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS THIS I3TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019,
I SERVED THE FOREGOING BRIET' OI' THE COMMISSION STAFF REGARDING
EXISTING CUSTOMERS WITH ON.SITE GENERATION, IN CASE NO. IPC-E-I8-I5,
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL & U.S. MAIL, POSTAGE PRE.PAID. TO THE FOLLOWING:
LISA D NORDSTROM
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83101-0070
E-MAIL: lrord\1i ()nl @ itllrhopo*'er'.corn
BENJAMINJ OTTO
ID CONSERVATION LEACUE
7IO N 6TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
ERIC L OLSEN
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN PLLC
PO BOX 6l t9
POCATELLO ID 83205
E-MAIL: elo(4 ee lrohltrr k.ettttr
TIM TATUM
CONNIE ASCHENBRENNER
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707-0070
E-MAIL: U_al!! !u(g. j_llrrlt_Lu
ELECTRONIC ONLY
l()wct _conl
caschL'nbrcr)uc t@) idahopowcr'.conl
&rckets@) idirhoDo\\'e r.co tlt
C TOM ARKOOSH
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
PO BOX 2900
BOISE ID 8370I
E-MAIL: 1\\rrt..r k\),r\lrr,r.tt k,jr )\lt.r r'ltt
cc hoh;:lvk.corrt
tavlor'.l.rcstcl I G arkoosh.coni
ANTHONY YANKEL
I27OO LAKE AVE
UNIT 2505
LAKEWOOD OH 44I07
E-MAIL: t( )n,\ (,\.nl'\'l.n!'t
TED WESTON
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
I4O7 WN TEMPLE STE 330
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84I 16
L.NlAIL:
YVONNE R HOGLE
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
1407 WN TEMPLE STE 320
SALT LAKE CITY UT E4I I6
E-MAIL: \(rlxlL llr \!1. ({r l).lr'ili!,rr11..\\llr
BRIANA KOBOR
VOTE SOLAR
358 S 7OO E STE 8206
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102
E-MAIL: hriirnu (( \ (,tc:()lilr.()r
{)t-t.co nr
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF I I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ELECTRONIC SERVICE ONLY
AL LUNA
irlL[].1(1 crrrlh ir rslicr:.i,r !
NICKTHORPE
l:!hslpsE-c4i!t1i! s t i cc. org
ABIGAIL R GERMAINE
BOISE CMY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PO BOX 500
BOrSE rD 83701-0500
E-MAIL: ir*crrr r:ri rti (,, r-il \ rrlhr rirt.L rrr:
F DIEGO RIVAS
NW ENERCY COALITION
I IOI STH AVE
HELENA MT 5960I
E-MAIL: Llic so (( n rr cnc r gY.ol-g
tc r'(g) richar dsonadarns.conr
ZACK WATERMAN
MIKE }IECKLER
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
503 W FRANKLIN ST
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: zilck,$ lrlcnrlilrl (..r sielracl trh.ot g
michacl hecker@ gmail.com
DR DON READING
6070 HILL ROAD
BOISE ID 83703
E-MAIL: clrc;rdinu (tt rttinds tn c01lt
PETER J RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON ADAMS PLLC
5 15 N 27TH STREET
PO BOX 72t8
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: pt'
RUSSELL SCHIERMEIER
29393 DAVIS ROAD
BRUNEAU ID 83604
E-MAIL: hu r. tr.r r (t grrrail.corn
l',t^, /l-ln\,\/ktvffi
Legal Assistant to Edward J. Jewell
BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 12
KELSEY JAE NUNEZ
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
920 CLOVER DR
BOISE ID 83703
E-MAIL: !c\q lq k!-:l :sl]iLclr Lr!!!'Lqe!tl
JIM SWIER
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC
SOOO S FEDERAL WAY
BOISE ID 83707
E-MAIL: t!!1r!f!q&c!n
DAVID BENDER
EARTHJUSTICE
3916 NAKOMA RD
MADISON WI 537I I
E-MAIL: tlhcnrLI(t cilt llll[!1r !]!!.elg
PRESTON N CARTER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
60I W BANNOCK STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-MAIL: plrl.!1trqcrLltr.'r'(, g!!r:t].\!UfilSl.!rl!ll
AUSTIN RUESCHHOFF
THORVALD A NELSON
HOLLAND & HART LLP
555 7TH ST STE 32OO
DENVER CO 80202
E-MAIL: qah_ci!:blrq!! !S lrellaldltai!.cllttt
tncl son (4' l)ol lilndlult-conl