20220104Response to Petition for Reconsideration.pdf

JULIA A. HILTON
Deputy General Counsel and
Director of Legal
[e-mail]
January 4, 2022
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Jan Noriyuki, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg 8,
Suite 201-A (83714)
PO Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-21-34
Randy Valley v. Idaho Power Company
Dear Ms. Noriyuki:
Enclosed for electronic filing, pursuant to Order No. 35058, please find Idaho
Power Company’s Response to Randy Valley’s Petition for Reconsideration.
If you have any questions about the attached documents, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Julia A. Hilton
JAH:sg
Enclosure
RECEIVED
2022 JAN 04 PM 3:46
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
JULIA HILTON (ISB No. 7740)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorney for Idaho Power Company

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Randy Valley,

Complainant,

vs.

Idaho Power Company,

Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. IPC-E-21-34

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Idaho Power Company (“Respondent,” “Idaho Power” or
“Company”), hereby responds to the Petition filed by Randy Valley (“Complainant” or “Mr.
Valley”) for Reconsideration of Commission Order No. 35253 issued on December 9,
2021 as allowed under Rules of Procedure 331.02. The Complainant’s petitions should
be denied because the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission’s (“Commission”) Order No. 35253 is unreasonable, unlawful,
erroneous, or not in conformity with the law.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A Petition for Reconsideration must specifically set forth the ground or grounds
upon which the Petitioner bases an argument that any issue in the order is unreasonable,
unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law, including a statement of the nature
and quantity of evidence the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.1
“The purpose of an application for rehearing is to afford an opportunity to the
parties to bring to the attention of the Commission in an orderly manner any question
theretofore determined in the matter and thereby afford the Commission an opportunity
to rectify any mistake made by it before presenting the same to this Court.” Washington
Water Power Co., v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122,
126 (1979)(citing Idaho Underground Water Users Ass’n v. Idaho Power Co., 89 Idaho
147, 404 P.2d 859 (1965); Consumers Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 40 Idaho 772, 236
P. 732 (1925)).
In this case, the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Commission’s
Order No. 35253 is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law.2
The Commission’s Order No. 35253 is based upon substantial and competent evidence
in the record. The Commission’s determination was reasonable, lawful, within its authority
and discretion, and there is no mistake in the order which the Commission must remedy.
Additionally, the Complainant also failed to provide a statement of the nature and quantity
of evidence or argument it would offer if reconsideration is granted.3 Consequently,

1 RP 331.01

2 Id.

3 Id.

IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
reconsideration should be denied.
II. DISCUSSION
The relevant factual background is recited by the Company in its Answer on
November 5, 2021 and the Commission in Order No. 35253 on December 9, 2021. The
Complainant’s Petition for Reconsideration was filed on December 28, 2021.
The Complaint initially presented three issues: whether the Company correctly
communicated the requirements of the Commission’s order and tariffs; whether the
Company correctly applied the legacy status requirements set forth in Commission’s
order; and whether the Commission should grant an extension of time to meet the
requirements for grandfathering the ten-panel expansion.4 First, the Company correctly
communicated the requirements for legacy status to both the Complainant and its agent
RevoluSun.5 Second, the Company appropriately enforced the requirements for legacy
status.6 Third, the Complainant does not provide any reasonable basis to deviate from
the requirements of Order Nos. 34509 and 34546 in its Petition for Reconsideration.
The Complainant fails to mention any laws, rules, regulation, or other legal
authority that the Company violated in processing Mr. Valley’s application or refusing to
grant him additional time to attain legacy status for his ten-panel expansion. Therefore,
there is no legal basis to grant a Petition for Reconsideration on alleged grounds that the
Commission’s determination is unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity with the law.

4 Idaho Power Company’s Answer at 13.

5 Order No. 35253 at 6.

6 Id.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
The Complainant repeats evidence already on the record in its Petition for
Reconsideration and opines on why there was not more communication from the
Company, which the Commission found to be sufficient. Additionally, the Complainant
suggests that Idaho Power did not communicate with Mr. Valley between January 7 and
November 6, 2020. This statement is inaccurate and misleading and directly conflicts with
the facts and evidence presented in the Company’s Answer and relevant attachments.
Therefore, there is no legal basis to grant a Petition for Reconsideration on alleged
grounds that the Commission’s determination is unreasonable or erroneous.
Additionally, the Complainant fails to provide a statement of the nature and quantity
of evidence or argument it would offer if reconsideration is granted, as required by the
procedural rules.
III. CONCLUSION
Because the Complainant has failed to meet the requirements under RP 331.01
and because the Commission’s determination was reasonable, lawful, correct, and in
conformity with the law, Idaho Power respectfully requests the Commission issue an
Order denying the Complainant’s Petition for Reconsideration.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 4th day of January 2022.

________________________________
JULIA HILTON
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 4th day of January 2022 I served a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S RESPONSE TO
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION upon the following named parties by the method
indicated below, and addressed to the following:

Commission Staff
Riley Newton
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington (83702)
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074

Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X _E-mail [e-mail]

Randy Valley
3020 NE Scenic Valley Lane
Mountain Home, Idaho 83647
Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X _E-mail [e-mail]

_______________________________
Stacy Gust
Regulatory Administrative Assistant