20171023Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

lF-11/:l)
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
300 Let Er Buck Rd.
Hailey, ID 83333
n.n ,J
October 22,2077
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
RE: Intervenor Funding Request Order 33905, Case IPC-E-16-28
Dear Commissioners Raper, Kjellander, and Anderson,
You denied my request for compensation of $18,538.47 as a property-owning Intervenor in
Case No. t?C-f,-rc-?8 due to the "untimeliness of submittal of request". I appeal this
decision on the grounds that 1) the request was timely as it was submitted during the
period that a petition for reconsideration could have been submitted and 2) the PUC had a
duty to "provide a full and fair representation in the proceedings to all affected customers"
but the PUC failed to provide a fair proceeding by failing to provide adequate information
about Section 61-6L7a to intervenors in advance of the written September 75,2417
written order. Once rhe information was provided to me as an intervenor, I promptly
submitted a request in a timely manner. My request was submitted September 16th, 2017.
The technical hearing in Case IPC-E-16-28 was held AugustB,2AL7, The PUC issued a
written decision September L5,2Al7 and noted that, "Any person interested in this Order
may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this
Order", or up until October 5,7,A17, I, as an Intervenor, could have petitioned for
reconsideration and incurred additional legal expenses up until Octobsv $th, 20L7.
Therefore, an Intervenor request for reimbursement of funding would be timely if it was
submitted within the October Sth date as the Case was still open to be reconsidered.
The intention of Section 61-6L7a is "to encourage participation at all stages of all
proceedings before this commission so that all affected customers receive full and fair
representation in those proceedings". The PUC must anticipate that not all intervenors
will be well-versed in all aspects of the }aw. In order to achieve a fair process, it was the
burden of the PUC to explain the intervenor process and options of reimbursement funding
to intervenors. I am a first time lntervenor and I intervened as a homeowner whose
property values will be directly affected by the proposed transmission line routing. Laura
Midgley was also a first-time Intervenor as a homeowner. Neither of us received any
information about the process nor the option of Intervenor reimbursemenl Furthermore,
the PUC did not provide adequate information about Section 6L-617a even to legal counsel
in the case; my attorney was under the irnpression that only non-profits could apply for
reimbursement. On their latest 990, the Sierra Club listed $82,273,496 in Assets, and
$121,545,133 annually in revenue. https;l/wwrv.guitieslar.nrg/profilc/94- 1 153307. The
Sierra Club is a non-profit 501[C] organization, but I would say I am more personally
impacted, financially and in the quiet enjoyment o[my residence, by the decision in this
case.
It was only until I received the September L5th decision notice that I was alerted that
intervenor funding was available due to the fact that the Sierra Club received it. At the
August 8th hearing; Chair Anderson could have stated, "lntervenor funding requests under
Rule 164 are due 14 days from today" I did not hear it). However, there was no
explanation to lntervenors of what that meant, nor what Rule 154 was; the sentence
probably would not have made any sense to any other novice interuenor in that hearing
room. I submitted for reimbursement as soon as I had information about the possibiliry to
do so.
Therefore, I petition the PUC reconsider my request for reimbursement of intervenor
expenses as I submitted my request as soon as I was provided knowledge about the option
to do so and it was submitted within the October 5,20L7 Petition for Reconsideration
deadline.
Sincerely,t
Kiki Leslie A. Tidwell
KT