20020703Answer to Stanley Searle.pdf

(1//1
STOEL
~~,
RECEiVED illFiLED
2UUZ JUL - 3 AM f):(l$
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900
Boise, Idaho 83702
main 208.389.9000
fax 208.389,9040
www.stoel.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW mr'Hn \'UJUL- ,
UT1LH1ES' COr1t-l1SSiON
July 2, 2002
MARY S. HOBSON
Direct [phone]
mshobsonCfYstoel.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise, ill 83702-5983
RE:Docket No. P AC-O2-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filing with this Commission is an original and seven copies ofPACIFICORP'
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF STANLEY SEARLE in the above
referenced docket.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly ym)rs
/Ii //ctJ1;! fk VI--
Mary s.dIobson
:blg
Enclosurescc: Scott Woodbury
Eric Olsen
Anthony J. Yankel
Randall C. Budge
James R. Smith
Timothy Shurtz
Conley E. Ward
Oregon
Washington
California
U l a h
Boise-143433.10020017-00047 Idaho
Page
James F. Fell
Erinn Kelley-SielSTOEL RIVES LLP
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900Boise, ID 83702-5958Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
RECEIVED mFILED
2861 JUt -3 AM 8:
ilJi.\hD ii;Hi
UTILITIES CDMHl SSlON
Attorneys for PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Application of PacifiCorp
dba Utah Power & Light Company for
Approval of Changes to its Electric Service
Schedules
PacifiCorp s Answer to Petition for
Reconsideration of Stanley Searle
P AC-02-
COMES NOW PacifiCorp, dba Utah Power & Light Company ("PacifiCorp" or the
Company ), by and through its attorneys of record and pursuant to Commission
Rules of
Procedure 331 and 332 (IDAPA 31.01.01.321 332) and Idaho Code ~ 61-626, and files its
Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Stanley Searle
, dated June 22, 2002 and
recorded with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission ) on June 25 , 2002.
For reasons discussed below, Mr. Searle has failed to sustain his burden as a petitioner
on reconsideration to show that the Commission s Order No. 29034 ("Order ) or any issue
1 Mr. Searle s Petition for Reconsideration was sent via U.
S. Mail. See CommissionRule of Procedure 331 (providing that Answers to Petitions for Reconsideration be filed within
seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration) and Idaho Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 6(e)(1) (providing that three (3) additional days be added to prescribed period
for filing when party is served by mail).
PacifiCorp I S Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Stanley Searle
Port1nd3-1406543.50020017-00047
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH A VENUE. SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
Page
decided in the Order is "unreasonable , unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law
(Rule of Procedure 331.01; Idaho Code ~ 61-626) and, accordingly, the Petition should be
denied.
ARGUMENT
PACIFICORP'S AGREEMENT TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL
INTERRUPTIBILITY OR LOAD-CONTROL CONTRACTS FOR THE 2002
IRRIGATION SEASON WITH NOT MORE THAN 15 LARGE IRRIGATORS IS
REASONABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY.
In his Petition, Mr. Searle argues that the Company s agreement in the Stipulation to
discuss individual interruptibility or load control contracts with only 15 large irrigators
amounts to "favoritism" by the Company. Mr. Searle does not provide any evidence or
argument in support of that allegation, except to ask whether " only those with inside interest
(will) have an opportunity (to participate)?"
As relevant to Mr. Searle s question, the Stipulation approved by the Commission in its
Order provides:
In response to concerns from the (Idaho Irrigation Pumpers
Association) concerning the loss of Schedule 10, Irrigation
Season Rate C and its associated load control benefits , PacifiCorp
agrees that it is willing to discuss individual interruptibility or
load control contracts for the 2002 irrigation season with not
more than 15 large irrigators (defined as irrigators having an
individual meter registering more than 500 kilowatts during the
last 12 months) on a first come-first served basis upon individual
request of a member of said class of irrigators for such
discussion.
That agreement by the Company is intended to be a non-discriminatory approach (fIrst
come-first served) to working with larger irrigation customers on a case-by-base basis
regarding interruptible service for the 2002 irrigation season. PacifiCorp did not limit the
number of large irrigators it would work with in this regard to 15 in order to discriminate
among specific irrigators. Rather , the Company and the irrigators agreed that 15 was a
reasonable number given the short duration of time remaining between the time the agreement
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Stanley Searle
Port1nd3-1406543.50020017-00047
STOEL RIVES LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
Page
Even if Rule 102 bill-stuffer notice was required in this case and the Commission is
authorized to impose a civil penalty for violation of that Rule 3 Mr. Searle s argument fails
because the penalty provisions of the Idaho Code do not require imposition of the maximum
penalty for a Rule violation and because Commission precedent and the circumstances of this
case do not warrant imposition of the maximum penalty. Idaho Code ~ 61-706 provides that
violation of a Commission rule may result in a civil penalty of "not more than $2000 for each
and every offense." In other words , the statute contemplates assessment of a civil penalty
amount below the statutory maximum.
Finally, for the reasons stated in PacifiCorp s Petition for Reconsideration, any increase
in the amount of the penalty would be excessive , unreasonable , unlawful and unsupported by
the record.
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons , the Petition for Reconsideration of Stanley Searle
should be denied.
DATED: July 2, 2002.
./U!
James F ell
Mary S. Hobson
Erinn Kelley-Siel
Of Attorneys for PacifiCorp dba Utah Power &
Light Company
3 For the reasons stated in its Petition for Reconsideration, filed June 28 , 2002 , the
Company does not agree that Rule 102 applies to this proceeding, neither does it agree that the
Commission is authorized to impose a civil penalty for a Rule 102 violation.
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Stanley Searle
Portlnd3-1406543.50020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day of July, 2002, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served on the following via U SMail:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise , ID 83720-0074
Conley E. Ward
Givens Pursley LLP
277 North 6th St., Suite 200
PO Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
Eric Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
PO Box 1391
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
Anthony J. Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village , OH 44140
Randall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
PO Box 1391
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
James R. Smith
Senior Accounting Specialist
Monsanto Company
PO Box 816
Soda Springs , ID 83276
Timothy Shurtz
411 South Main
Firth, ID 83236
jt-t~/;(r
Boise-140921.1 0020017-00047
Page
~ 111
James F. Fell
Erinn Kelley-Sie1
STOEL RIVES LLP
900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Mary S. Hobson
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1900
Boise, ID 83702-5958
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
RECEIVED IT)FILED
lllU2 JUL -3 AM B:
I'D idtU ; C
UTILITIES COf1MISSlON
Attorneys for PacifiCorp dba Utah Power & Light Company
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Application of PacifiCorp
dba Utah Power & Light Company for
Approval of Changes to its Electric Service
Schedules PAC-02-
PacifiCorp s Answer to Petition for
Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
COMES NOW PacifiCorp, dba Utah Power & Light Company ("PacifiCorp" or the
Company ), by and through its attorneys of record and pursuant to Commission Rules of
Procedure 331 and 332 (IDAPA 31.01.01.331 , 332) and Idaho Code ~ 61-626, and files its
Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Intervenor Timothy Shurtz ("Petition ), dated
June 23 , 2002 and recorded with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission ) on
June 26 , 2002.
1 Mr. Shurtz s Petition for Reconsideration was sent via U.S. Mail. See Commission
Rule of Procedure 331 (providing that Answers to Petitions for Reconsideration be filed within
seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration) and Idaho Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 6(e)(I) (providing that three (3) additional days be added to prescribed period
for filing when party is served by mail).
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Ponlnd3-1406551.4 0020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH A VENUE
...
SUlTE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
Jelephone [phone]
Page
For reasons discussed below, Mr. Shurtz has failed to sustain his burden as a petitioner
on reconsideration to show that the Commission s Order No. 29034 ("Order ) or any issue
decided in the Order is "unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law
(Rule of Procedure 331.01; Idaho Code ~ 61-626) and, accordingly, the Petition should be
denied.
ARGUMENT
THE BPA CREDIT WAS TREATED SEPARATELY AND DID NOT AFFECT
THE CALCULATION OF PACIFICORP'S EXCESS POWER COST
RECOVERY.
In his Petition Mr. Shurtz claims that the BP A Credit" should be treated as a separate
issue" and "should have no baring (sic) on the amount of monies given to Utah Power in this
case. "
In fact , the BP A Credit was considered separately by the Commission which approved
and implemented the credit in its Interlocutory Order No. 28946, issued January 31 , 2002. In
the Order challenged here, the Commission merely reaffirmed Order No. 28946 and noted
expressly that "(t)he BPA credit in its full amount remains intact and is unaffected by our
Order today." Order at 3. Moreover, Mr. Shurtz s implied allegation that the BPA Credit
somehow affected the amount of power cost recovery agreed to by the Parties to the Stipulation
and approved by the Commission in its Order is unsubstantiated. As noted by the
Commission, the BPA Credit qualifying Idaho customers are receiving "is by any measure
extraordinary and far exceeds historic levels." Order at 2. The allocation of the credit which
PacifiCorp proposed and the Commission accepted is just , reasonable and in the public
interest. Determination of the amount of excess power costs PacifiCorp will be allowed to
recover pursuant to the Stipulation approved in the Order was unaffected by the BP A Credit.
Mr. Shurtz has failed to present any basis for his request for reconsidering the Commission
decision on this issue and his request should be denied.
PacifiCorp I S Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Portlnd3-140655 1.4 0020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
Page
THE "MOST FAVORED NATION" PROVISION RELIED UPON BY
MR. SHURTZ DOES NOT APPLY TO TillS PROCEEDING.
In his Petition, Mr. Shurtz claims that the Company s excess power costs attributable to
the failure of its Hunter 1 generating unit should be taken out of the excess power cost
recovery approved in the Order and handled separately after the issues related thereto have
been decided in PacifiCorp s other jurisdictions. As a basis for this request, Mr. Shurtz cites
the so-called "most favored nation" provision adopted by the Commission in its order
approving the PacifiCorp/ScottishPower merger, Order No. 29213, issued November 15 , 1999
in Case No. PAC-99-1 ("Merger Order 2 That provision, adopted as Merger Approval
Condition No. 45 , provided:
Pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 61 624 , the Commission, after notice
and opportunity for hearing, may amend its fmal order to include
as an additional conditions to the final order any system-wide
benefit that may be ordered by another regulatory commission
with jurisdiction to approve the transaction. Excluded from
system wide benefits" are commitments or benefits that are
unique to a particular jurisdiction and situations where , through
negotiation in a particular jurisdiction, certain elements of the
package may be enhanced while others are reduced to produce a
total package that accommodates the unique requirements of that
jurisdiction. Merger Order at 16.
By its terms, the application of Merger Approval Condition No. 45 is limited to
Commission amendment of its final order in the merger proceeding. As the Commission noted
in the Merger Order, the "most favored nation" provision
constitute(d) ScottishPower s commitment that any 'system
benefits ' agreed to or imposed in other states will apply in Idaho.
The effect of this is to ensure that PacifiCorp s Idaho customers
2 The Petition refers generally to a "'Most Favored Nation' clause in the stipulation
but does not specify which" stipulation" to which it refers. Because the Stipulation approved
in the Order at issue here does not contain a "most favored nation" clause , PacifiCorp
assumes , for the sake of argument, that Mr. Shurtz is referring to Merger Approval Condition
No. 45 adopted in the Merger Order.
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Portlnd3-1406551.40020017-00047
STOEL RIVES LLPATTORNEYS
900 SW FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
Page
receive at least as favorable treatment as the Company
customers in other states. Merger Order at 26.
Thus , the intent of ScottishPower as expressed in the "most favored nation" provision was to
ensure Idaho customers received certain benefits resulting from the merger received by
customers in other states. The provision was not intended to apply outside that proceeding,
and Mr. Shurtz does not provide any evidence to support his contention that it applies to the
Stipulation adopted in this case.
Because the "most favored nation" provision in the Merger Order did not apply outside
the merger proceeding, Mr. Shurtz s request for reconsideration and/or clarification of the
Commission s Order in this case based on that provision should be rejected.
ALTHOUGH NOT BROKEN OUT INTO SPECIFIC COST COMPONENTS THE
ORDER CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED POWER SUPPLY
COST SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE.
Mr. Shurtz also contends that "one of the problems with the Hunter Costs and the
assessing of excess power costs in general is because these costs and issues were lumped into
one charge to the customers. "
It is true , as noted in the Order, that the Stipulation "does not attempt to assign blame
or allocate a specific percentage of sharing for Hunter." Order at 14. Rather
, "
(t)he
settlement provides a negotiated recovery figure (id. at 15) which the Commission accepted as
fair, just and reasonable. Id. at 16-17. Mr. Shurtz has failed to provide any evidence to
support his position that the Commission s conclusion in that regard is unreasonable , unlawful
or erroneous. As evinced by the testimony of Commission Staff member Randy Lobb in this
proceeding, the circumstances surrounding the Hunter 1 failure were considered and accounted
3 Indeed, the rate moratorium agreed to in the Merger Order , Merger Approval
Condition No.2 (discussed below) was a benefit of the merger unique to Idaho and, for that
reason, the Idaho Merger Order resulted in terms that were arguably superior to those enjoyed
by customers in PacifiCorp s other jurisdictions.
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Pon1nd3-1406551.40020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH AVENUE. SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
Page
for in the power cost recovery amount agreed to in the Stipulation. Transcript Volume III
Lobb Testimony pp. 311-314. In addition to costs related to the Hunter 1 outage, Staff's
analysis of the Company s request for recovery of its excess power costs included an
evaluation of "the normalized power supply costs allocated to the Idaho jurisdiction, the
deferral period accrual amounts , (and) the impact of wholesale power sales contracts." Order
at 16. The Commission s Order also found that the Parties to this proceeding considered
multiple issues related to the Company s excess power costs , including the Company s short-
term power purchase, wholesale power contracts , strategies in serving load, load growth, and
individual assessments of the probability of a party prevailing on a challenge of imprudence.
Id. at 16-17. Finally, the Commission also found "with certainty that many of the
disallowances identified by Staff (Hunter 1 outage, wholesale contract costs, load growth and
jurisdictional allocation) are included in the final Settlement figure.Id. at 17.
In short, the Commission s finding that the settlement amount agreed to in the
Stipulation is reasonable and in the public interest notwithstanding the fact that it does not
contain a specific delineation of costs is reasonable, lawful and supported by substantial
evidence. Mr. Shurtz has failed to demonstrate otherwise and, therefore, his request for
reconsideration of this issue should be denied.
THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY INTERPRETED MERGER CONDITION
NO.2 TO ALLOW PACIFICORP TO RECOVER ITS EXCESS POWER COSTS
IN RATES EFFECTIVE AFTER JANUARY 1, 2002.
In his Petition, Mr. Shurtz reiterates his objection to PacifiCorp s recovery of its excess
power costs in this proceeding as a violation of PacifiCorp/ScottishPower Merger Condition
No., adopted by the Commission in its Merger Order. According to Mr. Shurtz, the
Commission should have taken into consideration alleged representations made by Company
representatives and, based on those representations
, "
thrown out" the excess power costs
incurred during the two-year rate moratorium.
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Pon1nd3-1406551.40020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268Telephone [phone]
Page
Merger Condition No.2 provides: "At a minimum, ScottishPower shall not seek a
general rate increase for its Idaho service territory effective prior to January 1 , 2002." Merger
Order at 8. The Commission previously addressed that condition in response to a Petition for
Clarification filed by Mr. Shurtz in this case. Order No. 28998 issued April 12, 2002. In that
order , the Commission found that the condition had been fulfilled as the Company did not seek
any increases in rates to be effective before 2002. Order No. 28998 at 3. Likewise, in Order
No. 29034, the Commission found that recovery in this case did not violate the rate
moratorium and that
, "
as long as rates did not change or become effective prior to January 1
2002 " the Company could have filed a general rate case in 2001. Order at 13; see also
Transcript Volume III Shurtz Testimony, pp. 376-78 (wherein Commissioner Kjellander
explains that any rate case filing for new rates effective January 1 , 2002 would have been
based on costs incurred prior to January 1 , 2002, just as this case was based on costs incurred
during that period).
Merger Condition No.2 was a condition imposed upon the Company by the
Commission, not a condition offered by ScottishPower. In this case , the Commission has
correctly interpreted that provision in a manner that is fair and reasonable, both to ratepayers
and to the Company. 4 Nevertheless, Mr. Shurtz challenges that interpretation based on what
4 As it found in its Order
In this case, the Commission authorized a deferral accounting
mechanism for extraordinary power costs incurred by PacifiCorp
* * * to acquire adequate resources to meet its service obligation.
As a regulatory body this Commission has a dual obligation, one
to the utility to ensure that the utility is allowed such rates as will
produce sufficient funds to meet necessary maintenance and
operating expenses, and to provide it with an opportunity to earn
a fair and reasonable rate of return on the value of its property
devoted to the public service. On the other hand , the
Commission has an obligation to customers to ensure that the
service they receive is adequate, safe and reliable and that the
rates they pay are fair, just and reasonable. Order at 14.
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Portlnd3-140655 1.4 0020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS
900 SW FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
Telephone [phone]
Page
he refers to as "misrepresentations" and "misinformation" provided by Company officials.
Mr. Shurtz contends that "had * * * the benefits of this rate moratorium been clarified for the
public there would have been a continued opposition to the merger. "
As noted by the Commission in its Order , the record in the merger proceeding contains
no evidence to support Mr. Shurtz s allegations that any " misrepresentations " occurred or that
misinformation" was provided to the public. Order at 10. If customers believed
ScottishPower had made promises to them regarding post-merger rates, they should have
raised the issue in the merger proceeding, where PacifiCorp could have corrected any
misunderstanding. By keeping silent, customers did not give PacifiCorp an opportunity to
explain its position or the Commission an opportunity to incorporate different terms in the
Merger Order. Neither were these allegations raised by any party or person in a request for
reconsideration or clarification of the Merger Order. In short, the Commission correctly found
in its Order that it is bound by its previous orders and the evidence of record that those
decisions rested upon. The record in the PacifiCorp/ScottishPower merger proceeding is
closed and the Commission s intent with respect to Merger Condition No.2 "was clearly
articulated in the Merger Order." Order at 11. Mr. Shurtz s request that the Commission
consider "evidence" outside that record to now effectively modify the Merger Order by giving
it an interpretation contrary to its text must be rejected.
THERE IS NO BASIS ON THE RECORD FOR INCREASING THE CIVIL
PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION.
In its Order , the Commission imposed a $1 087 720 civil penalty upon the Company
for its failure to provide bill-stuffer notice to customers as required by Customer Information
Rule 102 ("Rule 102"
).
IDAPA 31.21.02.102. According to Mr. Shurtz, the Company
liability for the alleged violation of Rule 102 should be equal to the harm to customers , that is
the amount of the cost recovery approved in the Order. Mr. Shurtz states that he "believe(s)
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Port1nd3-1406551.4 0020017-00047
STOEL RIVEs LLP
ATTORNEYS900 SW FIFTH A VENUE
...
SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
lelephone [phone]
Page
that many other customers would have been more involved had Utah Power followed
commission rule 102 and notified the customers of their potential liabilities.
There is no evidence to support Mr. Shurtz s contention. As noted in the Company
Petition for Reconsideration (filed with the Commission June 28 , 2002), the record in this
proceeding demonstrates that the public was on actual notice of PacifiCorp s Application; the
attendance of customers and legislative representatives at the workshops and public hearings in
Rigby and Preston would belie any finding to the contrary. 5 The issues regarding the
requested cost recovery were thoroughly explained by the Staff and Company in the workshops
and well aired in the public meetings. By the time the public meetings were concluded , there
was no indication of any issues that could be productively addressed in further proceedings.
Because Mr. Shurtz provides no evidence to support his contention that additional
customer notice would have resulted in increased public participation, or that increased public
participation would have provided additional information to the Commission that would
warrant reconsideration of its Order , this ground for reconsideration is without merit.
Finally, for the reasons stated in PacifiCorp s Petition for Reconsideration, any increase
in the amount of the penalty would be excessive , unreasonable, unlawful and unsupported by
the record.
5 Mr. Shurtz agrees that PacifiCorp complied with the statutory notice requirements
provided by Idaho Code ~ 61-307 by filing its Application with the Commission and making it
available for public inspection at its offices. He complains , however that field-office access to
the Application is inadequate as a means of providing notice to customers. That complaint
however , is more appropriately directed to the Idaho Legislature.
6 In addition, for the reasons stated in its Petition for Reconsideration, the Company
submits that Rule 102 does not apply to this proceeding and that, therefore, no penalty for an
alleged violation of that Rule applies.
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Portlnd3-140655 1.4 0020017-00047
STOEL RIVES LLPATTORNEYS
900 SW FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
Telephone [phone]
Page
CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
should be denied.
DATED: July 2, 2002.
At~
James ell
Mary S. Hobson
Erinn Kelley-Siel
Of Attorneys for PacifiCorp dba Utah Power &
Light Company
PacifiCorp s Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration of Timothy Shurtz
Port1nd3-1406551.4 0020017-00047
STOEL RIVES UP
ATTORNEYS
900 SW FIFTH AVENUE
...
SUlTE 2600 PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1268
Jelephone (5031 224-3380
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this ):1 day of July, 2002, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing was served on the following via U SMail:
Scott Woodbury
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
PO Box 83720
Boise , ID 83720-0074
Conley E. Ward
Givens Pursley LLP
277 North 6th St., Suite 200
PO Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
Eric Olsen
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
PO Box 1391
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
Anthony J. Yankel
29814 Lake Road
Bay Village , OH 44140
Randall C. Budge
Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey
PO Box 1391
201 E. Center
Pocatello, ID 83204-1391
James R. Smith
Senior Accounting Specialist
Monsanto Company
PO Box 816
Soda Springs, ID 83276
Timothy Shurtz
411 South Main
Firth , ID 83236
,-,
Ii JUt/: !fr~
Boise-140921.l 0020017-00047