20000204_dh.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
RON LAW
TONYA CLARK
STEPHANIE MILLER
DAVE SCHUNKE
BILL EASTLAKE
RICK STERLING
WORKING FILE

FROM:

DATE: February 4, 2000

RE: REQUEST TO DISMISS THE FLOYD AUDETTE COMPLAINT AGAINST
IDAHO POWER, CASE NO. IPC-E-99-9

On August 27, 1999, the Commission issued a summons and complaint against Idaho Power Company regarding a complaint filed by Floyd Audette. Mr. Audette filed a formal complaint against the Company contending that he is entitled to line extension reimbursements for the Millard Subdivision. An amended summons and complaint was issued in November 1999. On September 10th and again on December 15, 1999, Idaho Power filed Motions to Dismiss the initial and amended complaints, respectively.
On January 18, 2000, Mr. Audette notified the Commission that he accepted an “offer by Idaho Power of three $800 refunds for the three customers that have connected on this line extension. In turn, I agreed to dismissal of this complaint.” On January 28, 2000, the Company filed a “Request for Order” acknowledging its offer made to Mr. Audette and requesting that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Audette’s letter and the Company’s request are attached.

BACKGROUND
In June 1999, Mr. Audette lodged an informal complaint with the Commission Staff regarding Idaho Power’s calculation of line extension cost to the Millard Subdivision (work order design #4633). This subdivision contains 12 lots. Apparently, Idaho Power treated Mr. Audette’s request for service to the subdivision as a “developer” request under its Tariff No. 101, Rule H. Idaho Power maintained that since Mr. Audette had requested service for 11 of the 12 lots, his request was treated as a line extension to a multi-lot subdivision rather than as an “applicant” for service to a single lot. The Commission issued a summons directing the Company to answer Mr. Audette’s complaint.
In answer to the summons, Idaho Power filed its initial Motion to Dismiss. For reasons not pertinent here, the Company urged the Commission to dismiss the complaint as untimely. In the alternative, the Company suggested that if the Commission is inclined to move forward with the complaint, that Mr. Audette should be required to file a more definite statement setting forth the facts surrounding the filing of the formal complaint. The Commission subsequently issued an Amended Complaint on November 24, 1999, following the receipt of additional materials from Mr. Audette.
In December 1999, the Company renewed its Motion to Dismiss the now “Amended” Complaint. Idaho Power renewed its characterization of the complaint as simply an attempt to relitigate a matter which was informally resolved some time ago. The Company also maintained Mr. Audette’s request for service to the 11 lots rather than simply his lot, should reasonably be treated as a developer’s request. Treating Mr. Audette as a developer would allow him to receive three $800 subdivision refunds for the three customers that have connected within the subdivision. Subsequent Motion to Dismiss at 3. On January 18, 2000, Mr. Audette filed a letter accepting the Company’s offer and agreed to the dismissal of his complaint.

THE REQUEST FOR AN ORDER
On January 28, 2000, Idaho Power requested the Commission issue an Order to dismiss Mr. Audette’s complaint with prejudice. In its request, the Company stated that it will treat the line extension to the “Sperry Lode Loop” Subdivision, as work performed within the subdivision. The Company stated that:
The lots considered as part of this subdivision are lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. For each lot receiving permanent service, Mr. Audette will be eligible to receive a refund of $800 less any additional line installation costs required to provide the requested service to the particular lot in question. There is only one refund per subdivision lot regardless of the change in ownership. If a line installation is required to serve a building pad on any of the remaining eight lots (three lots have already been connected), the $800 refund for that lot will be used as an allowance for the additional line installation work. If the entire $800 is not used, the balance will be refunded to Mr. Audette. Mr. Audette will be eligible for a subdivision refund from Idaho Power Company on the line installation charge for subdivision lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 when a permanent residence is connected within five years from the construction completion date of … October 26, 1998.

The total cost of the line inside the subdivision constructed to provide service to the eleven lots was in excess of $8,800. Thus, the maximum refund amount Mr. Audette is entitled to is $8,800.

In addition, Mr. Audette will be eligible for vested interest refunds for five years for payments on the line installation outside in the Sperry Loade Loop Subdivision. The first additional applicant connected to the line, other than the identified eleven lots [,] will be required to make a vested interest payment which will be remitted to Mr. Audette. The initial amount eligible for vested interest calculation is $4,418.

Request for Order at 2-3 (emphasis original). Idaho Power concluded by noting that once the Commission dismisses the complaint with prejudice, it will immediately issue a check in the amount of $2,400 (for lots 3, 5, 11) to Mr. Audette.

STAFF ANALYSIS
Although Mr. Audette has not formally responded to the Company’s January 28 filing, he indicated to Staff that he was satisfied with the Company’s offer set out above. He reaffirmed his agreement to dismiss his complaint as indicated in his correspondence of January 18, 2000.
Given the mutually agreeable resolution of the complaint, Staff believes that it would be appropriate to dismiss the complaint with prejudice conditioned upon the Company’s offer contained in its Request for Order. Consequently, the Staff recommends that this complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Commission Decision
Does the Commission concur with the Staff’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint?

vld/M:IPC-E-99-9_dh

The Millard Subdivision is subsequently referred to as the “Sperry Lode Loop” Subdivision in documents provided by the Complainant and the Company.

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3