28244.doc

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT APPLICATION AND PETITION OF PACIFICORP AND SCOTTISH POWER PLC FOR A DECLARATORY ORDER OR ORDER APPROVING PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND AN ORDER APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF PACIFICORP COMMON STOCK.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. PACE991

ORDER NO. 28244

BACKGROUND
On November 15, 1999, the Commission issued final Order No. 28213 approving the merger of PacifiCorp and Scottish Power plc in this case. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-626, as well as Rule 331 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.331, all interested persons had 21 days from the issuance of final Order No. 28213 to petition for reconsideration of that Order. Petitions were received from the Republican Legislative District No. 32 Committee, the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association and the City of Shelley, Idaho.

LEGAL CRITERIA FOR FILING PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Rule 331 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure sets forth the criteria that petitions for reconsideration must satisfy. Rule 331.01 states: “Petitions for reconsideration must set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner contends that the order or rule is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law, and a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument that the petitioner will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Rule 331.03 further requires that the petition “state whether the petitioner…requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.”

FINDINGS
City of Shelley
On December 3, 1999, the City of Shelley, Idaho submitted a letter to the Commission, which states:
On behalf of the Governing Board of the City of Shelley, I would like to request that you reconsider the motion allowing the merger between PacifiCorp and Scottish Power. The Mayor and Council members do not feel this merger is beneficial to our community. Thank you.

The letter is signed by Ms. Sandy Hanson, the City of Shelley’s Clerk/Treasurer.

It is not entirely clear whether the City of Shelley intends for its letter to constitute a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 331 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
The City’s Petition, if in fact it was intended as such, does not comply with the requirements of Rule 331. It fails to specify the grounds why the City contends that the Commission’s final Order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity of the law. Furthermore, the City’s letter does not contain a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument that it would offer if reconsideration is granted. Finally, it does not state whether reconsideration is requested by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments or interrogatories. In other words, it fails to satisfy any of the three criteria contained in Rule 331. Consequently, we are bound by our own rules to deny the letter as a Petition for Reconsideration but express our gratitude to the City for expressing an interest in a matter of great importance to this Commission and to the citizens of Idaho. We hope that in the future, the City, should it so desire, will not hesitate to actively participate in proceedings before this Commission. Due to the reasons stated above, the City’s Petition is denied.

Republican Legislative District No. 32 Committee (Committee)
On December 2, 1999, the Committee submitted a cover letter signed by 29 of its precinct representatives. The letter states, in part: “we the undersigned representatives of our respective precincts hereby petition the Idaho Public Utilities Commission to reconsider their decision to approve the takeover of PacifiCorp by ScottishPower.” Attached to and in support of the letter is a copy of a resolution passed by the Committee on November 20, 1999, which, it is fair to say, constitutes the body of the Committee’s Petition for Reconsideration. The resolution expresses a number of concerns and/or objections regarding final Order No. 28213. In summary, the resolution asserts that the Commission failed to adequately conduct hearings in the communities affected by its Order; the Commission failed to address the many concerns voiced by the public in this case; the record does not support the Commission’s finding that ScottishPower has the required experience and expertise to operate as a public utility in southeastern Idaho; ScottishPower has not demonstrated that it has adequate comprehension of federal and state regulations by which it would be governed; ScottishPower has provided no evidence that it has the necessary experience or sensitivity to the needs of southeastern Idaho’s rural agricultural customers; ScottishPower has failed to provide concrete evidence of how it will achieve efficiencies that would bring cost savings to the ratepayers; ScottishPower has failed to provide sufficient proof regarding its claim that rates will be lower; and, that the merger approval conditions adopted by the Commission are “weak assurances to the ratepayers and are not defined guarantees.”
We find that the Committee’s Petition adequately sets forth the grounds why it contends that the Commission’s Order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or not in conformity with the law. The Committee’s Petition fails, however, to satisfy the remaining two criteria set forth in Rule 331 of the Commission’s Procedural Rules which require a statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument that the Committee will offer if reconsideration is granted and a statement of whether the Committee requests reconsideration by evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.
We find also that all of the numerous grounds upon which the Committee contends the Commission’s Order should be reversed were fully addressed in the Order itself. The Committee does not identify any new evidence, information or facts that are not already specifically mentioned and analyzed in the Commission’s final Order.
We thank the Committee for taking the time to discuss, analyze and act upon a matter that is, no doubt, of considerable concern to its various constituents. In fact, the Committee’s Petition and accompanying resolution prompted us to review the decision reached in Order No. 28213 and assure ourselves of its legality and reasonableness. While we acknowledge that the Committee does not agree with the outcome of the case, our review nonetheless assured us that our final decision in this case considered in detail the many issues and concerns that were raised during this proceeding.
Based upon the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Reconsideration of the Committee is denied.

Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association (Irrigators)
On December 3, 1999, the Irrigators filed a Petition for Reconsideration based solely upon the Commission’s award of intervenor funding to the Irrigators in the amount of $9,846.97. In support of their Petition, the Irrigators include a brief setting forth a detailed analysis of their participation in this proceeding and why they believe they are entitled to additional funding. They argue that their expert witness addressed areas that were of concern to the general body of ratepayers including whether the applicants had appropriately undertaken a cost/benefit analysis of the merger and whether it had thoroughly addressed possible work force reductions and the possibility of a rate freeze. The Irrigators also note that their attorney was involved in numerous meetings with Legislators, members of the public and irrigation representatives. The effect of this, the Irrigators assert, is that during the public hearings, legitimate concerns were articulated by the irrigation class resulting in concessions that were later made by the Applicants [including the appointment of an irrigation specialist to southeastern Idaho and the extension of the irrigation HOTLINE facility].
After considering the Irrigators’ Petition and the arguments made in the brief, we find that it is reasonable to grant their Petition. In so doing, we note that we were persuaded by what we believe to be a much more articulate and detailed discussion of the Irrigators’ involvement in and contribution to this proceeding than was contained in their initial Application for Intervenor Funding. It is not this Commission’s responsibility to “make a case” for a party seeking intervenor funding. That responsibility lies, of course, with the party. Our initial funding award to the Irrigators was based on their initial Application. The brief in support of the Irrigators’ Petition for Reconsideration provides far greater detail and a more thoughtful analysis of their participation. We find, therefore, that it would be reasonable to double the funding award previously made increasing the total intervenor funding award to the Irrigators to the amount of $19,693.94. PacifiCorp shall pay this amount to the Irrigators within 21 days of the service date of this Order. Consistent with Idaho Code § 61-617A, this expense shall be chargeable to the irrigation class customers.
In recognition of the fact that the Irrigators have already briefed their position as well as the fact that intervenor funding awards are, by their nature, based upon the discretion of this Commission, we find that there is no need to conduct further proceedings with respect to the Irrigators’ Petition. The Petition is granted consistent with the terms set forth above.

O R D E R
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by the City of Shelley and the Republican Legislative District No. 32 Committee are denied. The Petition for Reconsideration of the Idaho Irrigation Pumpers Association is granted consistent with the terms and conditions set forth above.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION. Any party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No.  may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho Appellate Rules. See Idaho Code § 61-627.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this
day of December 1999.

DENNIS S. HANSEN, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

PAUL KJELLANDER, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary

vld/PAC-E-99-1_bp7

ORDER NO. 28244 1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 22, 1999