20030521Response to Petitioners Reply.pdf

\\ECE I\lED
\I ;:-' 11-.-
John M. Eriksson
STOEL RIVES LLP
201 South Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
1J\O3~A~ 20 p~ It: 55
UTll\'TIEs) Cci.~1MI~S'OH
Mary S. Hobson, ISB#: 2142
STOEL RIVES LLP
101 South Capitol Blvd., Suite 1900
Boise, ill 83702-5958
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for PacifiCorp
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Respondent.
Case No. PAC-03-DEL RAY HOLM
Petitioner P ACIFICORP'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REPLY
vs.
UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY /
P ACIFICORP
COMES NOW PacifiCorp, by and through its attorney, and presents this Response to
Petitioner s Reply to PacifiCorp s Answer and Motion to Dismiss. PacifiCorp respectfully
requests that the Commission consider this Response in its deliberations in this matter, and states
P ACIFICORP'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REPLY
that the need for the Response is driven by new claims made in Petitioner s Reply. In response
to Petitioner s Reply, PacifiCorp states as follows:
Petitioner s asserted need for a detailed itemization of costs and specifications
appears to be contradicted by the fact that it obtained the bid from Arco Electric Inc. which it
submitted with its Reply.
In its Reply, Petitioner now improperly seeks to change the relief it sought in this
case by requesting that PacifiCorp s Electric Service Regulation No. 12 "be amended as
necessary for customer installation of conversions." In doing so, Petitioner apparently concedes
that there is no reason for the Commission to grant the relief originally sought, because
Regulation 12 does not allow for customer-built conversions to underground lines.
By way of a reply to a motion to dismiss, Petitioner now seeks to have the
Commission adopt a policy (which would presumably also be applicable to Idaho Power and
Avista)l of requiring the electric utility to allow customers to construct conversions. Petitioner
untimely request in this regard is unsupported, fails to consider the safety issues raised by having
others performing construction underneath existing energized lines, and should be rejected.
Petitioner s additional and new request for relief that the "Commission adopt such
other relief as necessary to ensure that PacifiCorp s monopoly not be used in a manner to inflict
unfair, unjust and umeasonable charges and rates upon the Idaho customer" is unnecessary and
should be rejected. PacifiCorp is already subject to extensive regulation with respect to its rates
and service, and the Commission actively exercises its jurisdiction to ensure that PacifiCorp
rates and service are fair, just and reasonable.
I It is PacifiCorp s understanding that neither Idaho Power nor Avista has a tariff provision allowing for customer-
P ACIFICORP'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REPLY
DATED this 20th day of May, 2003.
PacifiCorp
A!I~
Stoel Rives LLP
Attorneys for PacifiCorp
built line conversions to underground.
P ACIFICORP'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REPLY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of May, 2003, I caused to be served, via fax and
United States mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PacifiCorp
Responseto Petitioner s Reply to the following:
Robert C. Huntley
Huntley Park
250 S. 5th, Suite 660
PO Box 2188
Boise, ill 83701
Scott Woodbury
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington
Boise ill 83720
~/f! kiP/
P ACIFICORP'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REPLY