20080125reconsideration_order_no_30491.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 25, 2008
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO
ITS ELECTRIC SERVICE SCHEDULES
CASE NO. P AC-07-
ORDER NO. 30491
On December 28, 2007, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission) issued
final Order No. 30482 in PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power general rate case No. P AC-
07-05. In our Order we denied the Petition of Timothy J. Shurtz for intervenor funding
($12 019.92). In doing so we made the following findings:
While this Commission is reluctant to deny Petitions for Intervenor Status
we find that Mr. Shurtz s participation did not result in evidence or input
qualitatively different from the comments received by the Commission from
customers and interested parties in the public hearings we held in eastern
Idaho or in the written comments of customers filed with the Commission.
Based on our review of the record in this case, the Commission finds that Mr.
Shurtz has failed to demonstrate entitlement to an award of intervenor
funding. Specifically, we find that his participation did not materially
contribute to our decision and that his recommendations on matters deemed
of relative importance and significance to this Commission did not materially
differ from the prefiled testimony and exhibits of Commission Staff.
Order No. 30482, p. 15.
On January 14, 2008, Mr. Shurtz filed a Petition for Reconsideration of Order No.
30482. Reference Idaho Code ~ 61-626(1); IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Mr. Shurtz asks the
Commission to reconsider our denial of his Petition for Intervenor Funding. In his Petition, Mr.
Shurtz states:
Although my findings were the same as the Commission Staff, I arrived at
them independently of the staff by studying the Company testimony.
testimony validated the Staff findings.
I signed the Settlement which the Commission ultimately accepted.
I also checked the Company service centers for the filing in this case.
something that no other party did in.
ORDER NO. 30491
Without me taking the time to alert the media to the public hearings, public
participation would have been low.
I did my best to contribute to this case. ... If you want a private citizen to
participate in the future interventions you need to find a way to allow for
private citizens to intervene without risking their financial well being.
Commission Findings
The Commission has reviewed and considered Timothy Shurtz s Petition for
Reconsideration. We have also reviewed the underlying filings of record in Case No. PAC-
07-05 including our final Order No. 30482, the prefiled testimony and exhibits of Timothy
Shurtz and Commission Staff, and the statutory requirements (Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A) and
Commission Rules of Procedure (IDAPA 31.01.01.161-165) related to intervenor funding.
In our final Order we set forth the statutory requirements for an award of intervenor
funding.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A includes a statement of policy to encourage
participation by intervenors in Commission findings. The Commission
determines an award for intervenor funding based on the following
considerations:
(a) A finding that the participation of the intervenor has materially
contributed to the decision rendered by the Commission; and
(b) A finding that the costs of intervention are reasonable in amount
and would be a significant financial hardship for the intervenor;
and
(c) The recommendation made by the intervenor differed materially
from the testimony and exhibits of the Commission Staff; and
(d) The testimony and participation of the intervenor addressed
issues of concern to the general body of users or consumers.
Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A.
Order No. 30482, pp. 13-14.
Mr. Shurtz admits that he is unable to demonstrate any material difference between
his case and that of Commission Staff. Considering this admission and the remainger of his
Petition for Reconsideration, we find that Mr. Shurtz has presented no compelling argument that
causes us to reconsider and change our final Order. It is our continued finding that Mr. Shurtz
ORDER NO. 30491
participation in this case provided no material contribution to our decision and that his
recommendations on matters deemed of relative importance and significance to this Commission
did not materially differ from the prefiled testimony and exhibits of Commission Staff. Order
No. 30482, p. 15.
To justify an award of intervenor funding, the Commission must be able to make the
statutory findings set forth in Idaho Code ~ 61-617 A. More is required than simply being
granted intervenor status or demonstrating hardship. While we regret the economic
consequences of our decision, we reaffirm our finding that Mr. Shurtz s participation in this case
did not merit such an award.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Idaho Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over PacifiCorp dba Rocky
Mountain Power, an electric utility, and the issues presented in this case, pursuant to the powers
granted it under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and pursuant to the Commission s Rules of
Procedure, IDAP A 31.01.01.000 et seq.including specifically Rules 272 through 280 as pertains
to settlements.
ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing and for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED and the Commission does hereby deny the Petition of Timothy 1. Shurtz for
Reconsideration of Order No. 30482.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION.Any party
aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.
PAC-07-05 may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law
and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code ~ 61-627.
ORDER NO. 30491
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this cJ..
day of January 2008.
MACK A. REDF
~~
1f
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
~tJ
fI,~D. Jew~ll
Commission Secretary
bls/O:P AC-07 -05 - sw4 _Reconsideration
ORDER NO. 30491