OAH 3-2500-21343-2
PUC
E-017/GR-10-239
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
|
SECOND
PREHEARING ORDER |
This matter came before
Administrative Law Judge Kathleen D. Sheehy on the motion to intervene of
Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, doing business as Missouri River Energy
Services (MRES). MRES filed its Petition
to Intervene on April 27, 2010, and it filed a brief in support of its petition
on July 23, 2010. Otter Tail Power filed
an objection to the intervention petition on May 7, 2010, and it filed a
responsive memorandum on August 11, 2010, at which time the motion record
closed.
Bruce Gerhardson, Associate General
Counsel, Otter Tail Power Company,
Based upon the record, and for the
reasons explained in the attached Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
ORDER
1. The
motion of MRES to intervene as a party is DENIED; however, it may participate
in this proceeding as a member of the public under Minn. R. 1400.6200, subp. 5;
2. William
Taylor is admitted to practice as counsel for MRES to participate in this matter
and all proceedings associated therewith, and he need not be accompanied by
counsel admitted to practice in Minnesota; and
3. The
Petition for Intervention of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(Local Union 949) as a party is GRANTED.
Dated: September 1, 2010 s/Kathleen D. Sheehy
_________________________
KATHLEEN
D. SHEEHY Administrative
Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
MRES is a joint action agency, formed
under
In 1986, MRES, Western Minnesota, and
Otter Tail Power Company entered into an agreement for the establishment,
planning, utilization, operation, and joint ownership of the Integrated
Transmission System (ITS) that delivers energy to ten MRES and nine
MRES originally argued that there were
two bases for intervention in this rate case. First, it contended that there were disputes,
or at least potential disputes, concerning Otter Tail Power’s operation and management
charges for the ITS in recent years. It
argued that this rate case was an appropriate forum for those charges and
computations to be examined, because the Commission’s decision with regard to
retail rates would be “indirect approval” of the propriety of the operation and
maintenance charges assessed to ITS owners.
Second, it contended that
Minn. R. 1400.6200, subp. 1 (2009),
provides as follows:
The petition [for intervention] shall
show how the petitioner’s legal rights, duties, or privileges may be determined
or affected by the contested case; shall show how the petitioner may be
directly affected by the outcome or that petitioner’s participation is
authorized by statute, rule, or court decision; shall set forth the grounds and
purposes for which intervention is sought; and shall indicate petitioner’s
statutory right to intervene if one should exist.
The
Administrative Law Judge shall allow intervention, upon a proper showing
pursuant to subpart 1 above, unless the judge finds that the petitioner’s
interest is adequately represented by one or more parties participating in the
case.[5]
MRES agrees that no decision the
Commission makes in this rate case with regard to the amount of operating or
management expenses under the ITA would be binding on MRES.[6] The Commission will decide only whether the
expenses or revenues attributable to the ITA are appropriate from the
perspective of ratepayers. MRES argues,
however, that the Commission’s approval of a rate that includes as a component
the revenues or expenses pertaining to the ITA would constitute “indirect”
approval of those charges.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes
MRES has failed to show that its legal rights, duties, or privileges would be
affected in any way by the issues in this contested case hearing. It will be affected only indirectly, if at
all, by the outcome of this case. The
petition for intervention is accordingly DENIED. The participation of MRES in this case as a
member of the public, however, is permissible under Minn. R. 1400.6200, subp. 5
(2009). A participant may provide
testimony, offer exhibits, and question witnesses. This level of involvement is appropriate to
address the issue whether revenues and expenses relating to the ITA are
properly reflected in the case, from the perspective of retail ratepayers (as
opposed to the perspective of a partner to the ITA).
In addition, on August 5, 2010, the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) (Local Union 949) filed
an untimely petition to intervene; on August 19, 2010, Otter Tail Power advised
it had no objection to the petition. The
K.D.S.