20191127Reply 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 )
OFIDAHO POWERCOMPANYTO )
STUDY THE COSTS, BENEFITS, AND )
COMPENSATIONOFNETEXCESS )
ENERGYSUPPLIEDBYCUSTOMER )
ON-SITE GENERATION )
RECEIYED
.rliliOy 2t ptt Z: lB
PUEI.IClci,iutsstoN
I l33l W. Chinden Blvd
Building 8, Suite 201-A
Boise, Idaho 83714
Attorncy tbr the Comrnission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITTES COMMTSSION
CASE NO. IPC-E.18.15
REPLYBRIEFOFTHE
COMMISSION STAFF REGARDING
EXISTING CUSTOMERS WITH ON-
SITE GENERATION
Pursuant to Order No. 321460, Staff of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Staffl')
submits the following reply brief. In this reply brief, Staff addresses arguments raised by the other
parties that Staff believes to be the most critical arguments for the Commission to consider.
Arguments to which Staff does not respond are neither admitted nor denied. ln these reply
comments, Staff will incorporate certain arguments put forward by other parties, discuss in greater
detail the controlling law, distinguish cases relied upon by the Company, respond to the
Company's argument that customers were on notice that rates can change, and conclude that the
Commission has the discretion to treat customers who signed up under l: I monthly netting
differently than customers who will sign up under Net Hourly Billing.
I. Arguments Made bv Other Parties Incorporated in StafPs Position.
In reviewing the comments submitted by other parties, Staff was persuaded to
incorporate two arguments. The first, and most substantial, is that Staff was persuaded by the
arguments of Idaho Clean Energy Association ("ICEA"), City of Boise, Idaho Conservation
League ("ICL") and Vote Solar that the systems designed and installed by customers with on-site
REPLY BRIL,F'OF THE COMMISSION STAFF I
Street Address for Express Mail:
<
-.(5
trtr.o
generation to comply with the rules of l:l monthly netting operate and interact with thc grid
diff'erently than will systems designed and installed to comply with rhe rules of Net Hourly Billing.
The second argument that persuaded Staff was made by ldaho Power Company ("ldaho Power"
or "Company"), which is the definition of an existing customer should be tied to the date the Notice
of Settlement Agreement was issued by the Commission. In Staf?s underlying brief, Stafl made
the argument that the date of distinction between new and existing customers should be the date
the Settlement Agreement was signed. Staff's rationale was based on the belief that after that date
it was no longer reasonable for a customer to base an investment decision on the belief that l: I
monthly netting would continue for the repayment period of their investment. Staffls rationale
remains the same, but upon further consideration, Staff belicves this rationale is most supported
by using the service date ofthe Notice ofthe Settlement Agreement, October 17, 2019, as the date
of distinction between new and cxisting customcrs.
II. The Commission Mav Reasonably Differentiate Between Classes of Customers.
The Company states, "Distinctions between customers based solely on the date the
individual became a utility customer have not been upheld by the ldaho Supreme Court on appeal
and subsequently have been disfavored by the Commission." Idaho Power's Opening Brief at 2.
Staff agrees with this statement, as far as it goes, but does not agree that it fully states the law as
pertinent to this case. Staff agrees that distinctions based solely on whether a customer is new or
old have been held to be unreasonable by the Court. Staff believes the more pertinent question to
be: are there different facts between customers who signed up for l:l monthly netting and
customers who will sign up for Net Hourly Billing, that the Commission can take into account, to
justify establishing different treatment between the two classes of customer? To answer this
question, it is critical to know which facts the Commission can take into account when determining
whether there arc reasonable differences between classes of customers.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a series of cases deferred to the Commission's
decisions to establish different rates for different classes of customers for a wide variety of reasons
(hereinafter, the "Grindstone Butte Il cases"). See Bunker Hill Company v. Washington Wdter
Power Companr, 98 ldaho 249, 561 P.zd 391 (19'77); Utah-ldaho Sugur Company v.
Internbuntain Gas Company, 100 Idaho 368, 597 P.2d 1058 (1919); Grindstone Butte Mutual
Canal Compuny v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n, 102 ldaho 175,627 P.2d 804 ( l98l )[hereinafter
Grindstone Butte Il): J.R. Simplot Compuny v. Intermounlain Gas Company,l02 Idaho 339, 630
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 2
P.2dl3l (1981);FMCCorp.v. IdohoPub.Util.Comnt'n, 104 Idaho265,658P.2d936(1983).
These cases recognized the Commission can properly consider numerous factors when deciding
to treat classes differently, and also recognized the Idaho Supreme Court has limited rcview ofthe
Commission's decisions, as set out in ldaho Code $ 6l-629.1
However, Iater decisions from the Cotrt, Idttho State Homehuilders and Boise W er
Corp. [hcreinafter lhe ldaho State Homebuilders cases], stated more succinctly the factors that the
Commission can properly consider when establishing different treatment between classes of
customers. Thc dissent in ldaho State Homehuilders noted the incongruity betwcen that case and
the standard described in Grindstone Butte II. "Today's opinion will seem to some to be
inconsistent with our decision in lGrindstone Butte IIl, decided just one short year ago. . . . While
today's opinion does not expressly oveffule this hotding, it ccrtainly runs contrary to it." Idaho
State Homebuilders v. Idaln Pub. Util. Comm'n, 107 Idaho 415, 690 P.2d 350, 356 (1984)
(BISTLINE, J. Dissenting). This narrower statement of what the Commission can consider was
repeated by the Court in Boise Water Corp. v. Idaho Pub. Util. Comm'n, 128 Idaho 534,916 P.2d
1259, 1264 ( 1996) and referenced as dicta in Building Contractors Ass'n oJ- Southwestem ldaho v.
Idaho Pub. Util. Comrn'n, 151 Idaho 10, 253 P.3d 684, 688 (2011) [hereinafter Building
Contractorsl.
Neither of these Iines of cases sets forth a neat nrle of decision for the Commission to
apply in this case because the facts at issue in this case, which involve export rates and producer-
consumers, were not in play when the earlier cases were decided. It is a fairly recent development
in the energy industry that customers are commonly both producers and consumers. Staff believes
the principles of establishing rates for consumption apply to the Commission's authority to set
rates lor export; namely that rates must be fair, just, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and in the
public interest. Therefore, while Staff believes the earlier lines of cases provide important
principles for the Commission to apply, they do not dispositively answer the question currently in
front of the Commission because of the unique facts of this case. Regudless whether the broader
statement of factors or the narrower statement of factors define the Commission's authority to
I The Court recognizcd the wcll-cstablished standard of rcvicw stated in Grlnrlstone Butte II in asubsequcnt casc, "/.R.
Simplot Conpany r. lntennountai CasCompany.102ldaho329,340,630P.2dl3l.132(Idahol98lXstating."lOlur
standards for revicw as sct out in Grindslone II arc wcll established. For thuse who are dissatisfied with the
Commission's decision but havc no cffective appeal under thc standards as set out in l.C. $ 6l-629 and Grindstone II,
they should take thcir pctition lirr rcdress to the legislature itscll.")
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAI.'F 3
distinguish between classcs of customers, Staff believes valid factors support reasonable
differentiation in this case under either statement of thc standard.
a)Grindstone Ilutte II.
The Grindstone Butte Il cases recognize the Commission was granted broad authority
by statute to make decisions in a technical and specialized field. Ne:rly every party to this case
who submitted a legal analysis cited to Grindstune Butte 11 as a still-cunent list of factors. Idaho
Power's Opening Brief at 8-9, Boise City's Comments Regarding Existing On-Site Generation
Customers at 9, ICEA's Brief Regarding Treatment of Existing Customers at 6. But sae Idaho
Irrigation Pumper's Association Brief Re: Treatment of Existing On-Site Generation Customers
at 2 (citing Building Contructors), Brief of ICL and Vote Solar on Treatment of Existing
Customers (not stating a legal standard).
According to the Grindstone Butte 11cases, the Commission can use its sound and well-
instructed judgment to weigh, among other factors, "every element and every circumstance which
increases or depreciates the value of the property, or the service rendered" and "the reasonable
efficiency and economy of operation and the actual differences in the situation of lhe consumers
tbr the furnishing of the service."
[T]he relevant criteria included the quantity of the utility used, the
nature of the use, the time of use, the pattern of use, the differences
in the conditions of service, the costs of service, the reasonable
efliciency and economy of operation and thc actual differences in
the situation of the consumers for the furnishing of the service.
Specifically, as between classes ofcustomers within a schedule, the
criteria included contribution to peak load, costs of service on peak
demand days, costs of storage and economic incentives. (Citations
omitted). 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. As this Court has stated in the past: 'Each case must
depend very largely upon its own special facts and every element
and every circumstance which increases or depreciates the value of
the property, or of the service rendered, should be given due
consideration, and allowed that weight to which it is entitled. It is,
after all, very much a question of sound and well-instructed
judgment.'
RIIPLY BRlEr" Ot" THE CoMMISSION STAFF .+
Grindstona Butte ll atP.2d 808-809 ciLing Kiefer v. Ciry.* of ldaho l;a//s,49 Idaho 458,467,289 P.
8l , 84 ( I 930). Staff believes these factors clearly support the Commission diff'erentiating between
customers who signed up for l: I monthly netting and customers who will sign up for Net Hourly
Billing because actual differences in the situation of the customers will impact the efficiency and
operation of their systems. Customers under l:l monthly netting designed and installed systems
to comply with the rules in place at the time. These systems are likely to have different
characteristics than a system designed to meet the rules ofNet Hourly Billing.
Grindstone Butte ll also recognized that the Commission can consider all relevant
criteria, including energy conservation, optimum use, and resource allocation when setting rates
and acknowledged that the Commission's considerations can respond to current economic
realities.
Absent a legislative pronouncement to the contrary, we find it within
the Commission's jurisdictional province to consider in its rate
making capacity all relevant criteria including energy conservation
and concomitant concepts of optimum use and resource allocation.
In the proceedings below, we find no error in these considerations
as made by the Commission in what it perceived as a need to devclop
new rate designs which would be responsive to curent economic
realities. It is in the public interest to make such considerations in
decisions which impact upon the consumption ofenergy, especially
in light of the advancing 'political, economic and environmental
costs imposed on society.'
Grindstone Butte IIP.2dat 810 (citing BunkerHillCo. v. Washington Water PowerCo.,98 Idaho
249,253,561 P.2d 391, 395 (1977). Staff notes that thc Commission, even after ldaho State
Homebuilders, has continued to consider how rates affect energy conservation, optimum use, and
resource allocation. Some examples are the proponion of fixed charges to volumetric charges and
the assignment and design of demand-related charges to some customer classes. The Commission
appropriately considers a broad range of factors when making these decisions.
The Court's view in the Grindstone /1 cases is consistent with the Commission's role
as a legislative agency with the power to make policy decisions on a prospective basis under a
broad standard ofensuring that rates are fair,just, reasonable, non-discriminatory, and in the public
interest. See e.g., Owner Operator lndependent Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Idaho Pub. Util. Cotnm'n,
125 Idaho 401, 871 P.2d 818, 825 (1994) (stating, "The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is a
legislative agency"); A.W. Bntwn Co., Inc. v. Idoho Power Co.,12l Idaho 812, 828 P.2d 841, 848
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFI. 5
(1992) (referencing the Commission's actions as an "agency of the legislative department of
government"); Petitiotr of Mountdin St( es Tel. and Tel. Co., 76 Idaho 474, 284 P.2d 681, 683
( 1955) (stating the Commission is "the agency of the legislativc department of government . . . .
So long as it regularly pursues its authority and remains within constitutional limitations, the courts
have no jurisdiction to interfere with its determinations."). Restricting the Commission's authority
to a limited subsct of factors is contrary to the broad authority granted the Commission in statute
and could impede the Commission's ability to ensure that its decisions are fair, just, reasonable,
non-discriminatory, and in the public interest.
b)Idaho State Homebuilders
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAI.F' 6
The Idaho State Homehuilders statement of factors the Commission can consider when
determining whether differences in customer classes are reasonable is narrower than the statement
in Grindstone Butte II. "Any such difference (discrimination) in a utility's rates and charges must
be justified by a corresponding 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." Idafut State Honrcbuilders, P.2d at 355. The ldaho State Honrebuilders cases
do not contradict the statcments in the Grindstrne Butte Il cases Lhat each case must depend largely
on its unique facts. Under the ldaho State Homebuilders statement of reasonable differences, the
Commission still has the authority to determine that Net Hourly Billing customers are reasonably
different than I : I monthly netting customers for a variety of reasons.
First, the listprovided in ldaho State Homebullders is a non-exclusive list. Second, l:1
monthly netting customers and Net Hourly Billing customers flace differences in the conditions of
their service. l: I monthly netting customers signed up on the condition that their production and
consumption would be netted monthly and that their positive net production would be carried
forward indefinitely and applied to their bill as a l: I credit. Net Hourly Billing customers will
take servicc on the condition that their production and consumption will be netted hourly, and
positive net hourly energy will be credited at the Export Credit Rate. Third, systems installed
under Net Hourly Billing will be designed to perform in a different manner than systems installed
under l:l monthly netting. To benefit from the terms ofNet Hourly Billing, an on-site generator
is more likely to orient their panels more westerly to capture more energy in the late afternoon and
evening hours when the customer is at home consuming energy, and they may be more likely to
install batteries with their system. These systems will therefore be different in their "time, nature,
and pattern of the use." For any or all ofthese reasons, the Commission can recognize a reasonable
difference between I :1 monthly netting customers and Net Hourly Billing customers.
By reading Idaho State Homebuiltlers and Boise Water Corp. to merely state that the
Commission cannot reasonably differentiate between customers solelv based on whcn the
customer comes on the system, the well-developcd case law embodied in Grindstone Butte II wlll
be given its due weight, and the broad discretion granted the Commission under the Public Utilities
Law will be appropriately acknowledged.
III. The Companv Cites to Non-Controllin Case Law in the Bodv of its Arsument.
The Company cites a case from 1912 that has little to no bearing on the current case.
ln Cit| of Pocatello t,. Murrq', the Supreme Coun of Idaho held that a private resident who was
operating as Pocatello Water Company could not rely on municipal ordinances as contracts to
ensure a 5olc rate of return over 50 years. 2l Idaho 180, 12OP.812 (1912). The conflict predated
thc establishment of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission and the Idaho Public Utitities Law. In
Murra,-, the Court stated that a utility could not rely on municipal ordinances to guarantee itseli a
fixed rate of return, and that the state has a continuing power to ensure that a private interest
charges reasonable rates to serve the public under a franchise.
The difference between the Pocatello Water Company and producer-consumers of on-
site generation is remarkable. Yet, the Company attempts to obviate the difference. "By cngaging
in the business of importing2 elcctric energy back to the grid for credit, Idaho Power's existing
residential and small general service customers with on-site generation have similarly 'undertaken
...toservethepublicforprivategain."'IdahoPower'sOpeningBriefat13. Customers with on-
site generation, as private citizens, first otfset their own consumption and then sell the rest of the
electricity they generate to the public utility, which then undertakes to serve the public for private
gain, whereas the Pocatello Water Company served the public directly fbr private gain. It is
uncertain why the Company is trying to collapse this difference, but iftaken to its logical extreme,
the Company's argument would imbue producer-consumers with the rights and responsibilities of
a public utility. Doing so would unnecessarily and improperly raise a host of legal and policy
concerns. For the matter at hand, Murray is easily distinguishable because it dealt with city
ordinances and state laws that a.re not involved in this case.
2 Staff undcrstands this sentence to rcfcl to an export by a customer-gcncrator to the grid, cven though the Company
refers to "importing electric encrgy back lo the grid for credit[.]"
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF '7
The Company also rcfcrences a 1989 Commission case that does not have particular
relevance to the matter at hand. In IPC-E-89-5, the Commission stated that rates for consumption
are subject to change and ratepayers pay a portion ofall the Company's costs, notjust the costs of
the resources that were online when the ratepayer interconnected to the Company's system.
It is important to remind electric utilities and potential special
contract customers that this Commission has never 'vintaged' utility
conditions at the time a customer begins service or expands service
for the benefit of that customer. For instance, the expansion of Idaho
Power's hydroelectric base into Hells Canyon in the late 1950s and
etuly 1960s approximately coincided with the expansion of the load
of its largest customer-FMC Corporation. FMC Corporation has
not, however, been assigned a portion of thc Hells Canyon dams as
its own generation for cost-of-service purposes. Instead, FMC, as
every other customer on the system, has been assigned proponionate
shares of all of the Company's generation, from the low-cost
hydrogenerating to the most expensive thermal projects. Similarly,
special contract customers coming on in this time of surplus have no
rights to continuation of their 'good deals' beyond the time of
surplus.
Ordcr No. 22489, 1989 WL l'779399 at x4. As argued in Stafls underlying brief, customers
understand that rates for consumption can and will change. To hedge against future rate increases,
some customers invested in on-site generation. These customers had no reason to expect, however,
that the longstanding net-metering program design would change fundamentally. These customers
do not seek to have the Company's conditions frozen in time; rather, they seek only to have their
reasonable expectations recognized and ensure that the value of their investments, which were
designed to comply with the rules in place at thc time, are not unreasonably diminished.
The Company states that it is most legally defensible for the Commission to transfer
existing customers to Net Hourly Billing according to the transition period established in the
Settlement Agreement. Idaho Power Company's Opening Brief at 20-21. The Court has found
that uniformity for uniformity's sake can also represent rate discrimination when the uniqueness
of a class of customers is established. When there is substantial and competent evidence in the
record establishing unique characteristics of a customer or a class, the Commission cannot
establish uniform rates simply for the sake of uniformity. Agricultural Prod.utts Corporation v.
Utah Povver & Ligltr Co.,98 Idaho 23, 551 P.2d 617,625 (1976); Bunker Hill Co. Washington
Water Poyver Ca., 98 Idaho 249, 561 P.2d 391,396 (1971).
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 8
IV. Notice to the Public that Rates Mav Change.
StatT concurs with the Company that the Commission and the Company have
endeavored to notify the public that their rates are subjcct to change. Staff continues to believe
there is a marked difference between understanding that rates may change and understanding that
the fundamental program structure can change. The Company recited its efforts to warn customers
that the net-metering program structure is subject to change. Sea Idaho Power Company's Opening
Brief at 17-20. Staff notes that some warnings were written more clearly than others, were
displayed more or less prominently, and were in place on different dates. Staff also notes that the
Company felt it was necessary to pass legislation, the Residential Solar Energy System Disclosure
Act, to more clearly state that the terms of the net-metering program are subject to change.
The most prominent waming provided to customers, other than that required by the
recently enacted legislation, was the checkbox on the Application beginning January 1,2017
stating, "I understand that the on-site generation and net metering service, including the rate
structure and interconnection requirements, are subject to change and that current rates do not
represent future pricing." This language was placed conspicuously, but does not fully address
Staff's concern that customers reasonably did not grasp the difference in consumption rates and
program structure. Also, the customer does not have a choice of which utility with whom they
would like to interconnect, short of moving to another utility's service territory. This was a take-
it-or-leave-it opportunity that had been stable for decades with a warning stating that
"interconnection requirements" and "rate structure" may change at the bottom of one step in a
process with a lot of steps.
StafT has reviewed the comments submitted by the public. Nearly all of them state a
belief that it is unfair for the Company to go back on an agreement it had with its customers. These
comments show a near uniform understanding among the public commenters that there was some
level of guarantee that the net-metering progrum structure would not fundamentally changc. All
things considered, Staff believes a reasonable customer purchasing an on-site generation system
could have made a long-term investment on the understanding that, while specific details and
nuances ofthe program they were signing up for might change, the fundamental program structure
would remain.
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFT.' 9
V. Conclusion.
Regardless whether the Grindsktne Butte II fxtors apply, or whether the ldafut State
Homebuilders factors apply, there are cognizable differences between customers who took service
under 1:l monthly netting and customers who will take service under Net Hourly Billing. The
arguments submitted by the parties augment Stafls original position. The Commission has the
discretion to determine whether these differences justify different treatment.
RESPECTFULLY submitted rhi, 21tdoy of November,2019.
Edward J.ll
y GeneralDeputy
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF IO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019, I
SERVED THE FOREGOING REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMNIISSION 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 I.OLLOWING:
LISA D. NORDSTROM
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
P.O. BOX 70
BOTSE, ID 83707-0070
E-MAIL: I t r r , t r I . I t r r t I I ( , I idrthi,IL,l et.eL,trr
BENJAMIN J. OTTO
ID CONSERVATION LEAGUE
7IO N. 61H STREET
BOISE, ID 83702
E-MAIL: h,'rt, r,l,rl ,.' n\. f\ rtr,i" , i-
ERIC L. OLSEN
ECHO HAWK & OLSEN PLLC
P.O. BOX 6t l9
POCATELLO, ID 83205
E-MAIL: cl()tr ( ( hr )lrir !\ L.ror r
TIM TATUM
CONNIE ASCHENBRENNER
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
P.O. BOX 70
BOISE, ID 83707-0070
E-MAIL: llll r_tx (t idirhopo\\ cLr'r)rrl
easch.'ttl.r1e'nner(i idlrh0turtt.l!
EI,ECTRONIC SERVICE ONLY
c0lll
doc ke 1 s Cr !_d,4[4)o \!el.!.gt! t
[a\ shl (o)r'chohtwk-colr
ANTHONY YANKEL
I27OO LAKE AVE.
UNIT 2505
LAKEWOOD, OH 44107
E-MAIL: ({)n\ (r \ irnL!'l.rtel
TED WESTON
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
I4O7 WN TEMPLE, STE. 330
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84I 16
E-MAIL: l c(I \\ I'r1 !L!rlI1U!.11t 11111.q, I111
BRIANA KOBOR
VOTE SOLAR
358 S 700 E, STE. 8206
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102
E-MAIL: h r ii rn ir k,_\ o l!'s(,la r . rn g
DAVID BENDER
EARTHJ USTICE
39I6 NAKOMA RD.
MADISON, WI 537I I
E-MAIL: tihr'lr.lert,, cirrlhjLr.l rce,rr g
YVONNE R. HOGLE
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
I4O7 WN TEMPLE, STE. 320
SALT LAKE CITY. UT 84I 16
E-MAIL; \ rLrnrte 1to,-:lq!1 p.rt$rllf|.r\)rr r
ELECTRONIC SI]RVICE ONLY
AL LLTNA
qlg44@r ernl rj u rt icc.. Lr rg
NICKTHORPE
nl holl)qqqui!\1lqet,!trg
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF I I
C. TOM ARKOOSH
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
P.O. BOX 2900
BOISE, ID 8370I
E-MAIL: 19rr.lr [.r4s]t(r:'itt koosh.cottt
LiU lor. rrt'!r'll O!lqQr[!111r
ABIGAIL R. GERMAINE
BOISE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
P.O. BOX 500
BOISE, ID 83701-0-500
E-MAIL: lrgtrntitine (r citr olh,tsr' otr
KELSEY JAE NUNEZ
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
920 CLOVER DR.
BOISE, ID 83703
E-MAIL: L( [sq @tkq ltc-rj4qrultlr.!.e m
F. DIEGO RIVAS
NW ENERGY COALITION
I IOI 8TH AVE.
HELENA, MT 5960I
E-MAIL: {ic go (lqqcq9g1ggg
JIM SWTER
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC.
SOOO S. FEDERAL WAY
BOISE, rD 83707
E-MAIL: .i
PRESTON N. CARTER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
60I W. BANNOCK STREET
BOISE, ID 83702
E-MAIL: pr.\t( rleiu laf 1!I ri\ ( u \|u r\ l!'\ -c(r lI)
ZACK WATERMAN
MIKE HECKLER
IDAHO SIERRA CLUB
503 W. FRANKLIN ST.
BOISE, ID 83702
E-MAIL: zlrck.$ lrlcr-Irarr @ sir'rrirclub.()r
michael.p.heckcr@) gmail.corn
AUSTIN RUESCHHOFF
THORVALD A. NELSON
HOLLAND & HART LLP
555 7TH ST., STE. 32OO
DENVER, CO 80202
E-MAIL: dalr re schholl(a hollandhut.crrnr
tnelson @rhol landhan.conr
DR. DON READING
6070 HILL ROAD
BOISE, ID 83703
L,-N"lAlL:
RT]SSELL SCHIERMF,IER
29393 DAVIS ROAD
BRUNEAU, ID 83604
E-MAIL: [r1 hu1
srvier@\ micron.corrr
PETERJ. RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON ADAMS PLLC
5I5 N. 27TH STREET
P.O. BOX 72t8
BOISE, ID 83702
E-MAIL: t)et( r(.J rirhlrrd\()D;td;trtt'.t,rrr
fu,AfrAv,/ItNffi
Legal Assistant to Edward J. Jewell
(q,gurril.ct-rrn
REPLY BRIEF OF THE COMMISSION STAFF 12