20010823Order No 28807.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PACIFICORP DBA UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR A DETERMINATION THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN WHEELING SERVICE TO SNAKE RIVER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PAC-E-01-6

ORDER NO. 28807

This case was opened April 13, 2001, when PacifiCorp doing business as Utah Power & Light Company (PacifiCorp) filed a petition “for a review of PacifiCorp’s action in response to a request by Snake River Valley Electric Association (Snake River) for certain wheeling service, and for an Order determining that PacifiCorp shall not be required to provide such wheeling service.” Petition p. 1. PacifiCorp’s petition was filed pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-332D(2) which provides that “an electric supplier declining to provide wheeling service pursuant to this section shall petition the Commission for review of the electric supplier’s actions in respect to a request for such service.” On July 9, 2001, Snake River filed a Motion to Dismiss PacifiCorp’s Petition.
On July 20, 2001, a Petition to Intervene was filed in this case by the Attorney General of the State of Idaho pursuant to Rules of Procedure 71 through 75 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission. IDAPA 31.01.01.071-.075. The Petition “claims a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings for the limited purpose of opposing the Snake River’s Motion to Dismiss and ensuring that the provisions of Idaho Code § 61-332D are applied.” The Attorney General’s Office requests to participate as a party “but only in the limited context of opposing Snake River’s present Motion [to Dismiss].” Petition to Intervene, p. 2.
On August 1, 2001, an objection to the Attorney General’s Petition to Intervene was filed by Snake River. The objection states that the Attorney General’s Office “is not alleging that the state of Idaho has a ‘dog in this fight’ by way of any financial interest or that the state of Idaho is a party being required to perform or not to perform some act.” Snake River contends that the Attorney General’s only purpose in intervening “is that the state has an interest in having the statute correctly interpreted.” Snake River argues that is not an appropriate purpose for intervention by the Attorney General’s Office.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Idaho Code § 61-204 provides for the Attorney General “to represent and appear for the people of the state of Idaho and the Commission in all actions and proceedings involving any questions under this act or under any order or act of the Commission.” In addition, the Commission has a long history of liberally granting petitions to intervene by parties claiming a significant interest in a case, thus ensuring an opportunity for development of a complete record. We find, based on the pleadings and other documents filed in this case, intervention by this party would serve the purposes of intervention as described by Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure and should be granted as requested by the Petition.
O R D E R
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition to Intervene filed by the Attorney General of the State of Idaho is hereby granted, for the limited purpose described in the Petition to Intervene; that is, to participate in the briefing and argument on Snake River’s Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties in this proceeding serve all papers hereafter filed in this matter on all parties of record. This Intervenor is represented by the following for purposes of service:

Brett T. DeLange
Deputy Attorney General
700 W. Jefferson St., Room 210
PO Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0010

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of August 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

bls/O:pace016_in1_ws
ORDER NO. 28807 -1-

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 23, 2001