20110506Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: NEIL PRICE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: APRIL 28, 2011

SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PACIFICORP DBA
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER REQUESTING APPROVAL OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE REVISED PROTOCOL ALLOCATION
METHODOLOGY, CASE NO. PAC-E-10-09

On September 15, 2010, PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (“Rocky Mountain”
or “Company”) filed an Application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”)
requesting approval of amendments to the Revised Protocol allocation methodology previously
approved by the Commission in Order No. 29708, Case No. PAC-E-02-03.
MOTION FOR LIMITED ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
On April 11, 2011, Rocky Mountain filed, pursuant to Commission Rule 43 and
Idaho Bar Commission Rule (IBCR) 222, a Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice for and
on behalf of Mark C. Moench, Daniel E. Solander, and Paul J. Hickey (collectively referred to as
“Applicants”). The Motion was signed and attested to by local counsel Richard R. Hall of the
Boise law firm Stoel Rives LLP.
In the Motion, the Applicants assert that: (1) they are active members, in good
standing, of the Utah and Wyoming state bars; (2) they paid the applicable $200 fee per applicant
to the ISB; (3) they have previously been admitted under IBCR 222 in conjunction with
Commission Case No. PAC-E-10-07; and (4) they have not previously been denied admission in
this jurisdiction, pursuant to the IBCR, or any other jurisdiction under a similar rule. Applicants
request approval to appear before the Commission in the instant case and all other proceedings
“Rocky Mountain may bring before the Commission through December 31, 2011.”
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
Mr. Hall acknowledged that his attendance is required at all Commission proceedings
in which the applying counsel appear. However, Mr. Hall requests that the Commission excuse
his attendance “unless needed by Rocky Mountain Power.”
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission wish to grant Admission Pro Hac Vice, in the current
proceeding and all other proceedings brought before the Commission by Rocky Mountain Power
through December 31, 2011, to attorneys Mark C. Moench, Daniel E. Solander, and Paul J.
Hickey?
2. Does the Commission wish to excuse the attendance of motion affiant Richard R.
Hall?

M:PAC-E-10-09_np