20101004min.doc

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING

OCTOBER 4, 2010 – 1:30 P.M.

In attendance were Commissioners Marsha Smith, Mack Redford, and Jim Kempton, who participated by telephone.

Commissioner Smith called the meeting to order. The first order of business was APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING on Monday, September 27, 2010. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes as written.

The second order of business was approval of the CONSENT AGENDA:
2. Kristine Sasser's September 30, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Application of Avista for Authority to Revise Its Residential and Farm Energy Rate (Schedule 59), Case No. AVU-E-10-04.3. Kristine Sasser's October 1, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Bellerud Communications, LLC Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Case No. BEL-T-10-01.4. Kristine Sasser's October 1, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: LifeConnex Telecom, LLC Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Case No. LIF-T-10-01.5. Kristine Sasser's October 1, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Triarch Marketing, Inc. Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Case No. TRI-T-10-01.6. Neil Price's October 1, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Application of American Dial Tone, Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Case No. AMD-T-10-01.7. Scott Woodbury's September 30, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Amendments to Revised Protocol Allocation Methodology, Case No. PAC-E-10-09 (PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power).8. Scott Woodbury's October 01, 2010 Decision Memorandum re: Review of Surrogate Avoided Resource (SAR) Methodology, Case No. GNR-E-09-03.
There was no discussion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve Staff’s recommendations for items 2 – 8 on the Consent Agenda.

MATTERS IN PROGRESS:
9. Yellowstone Power's Motion to Permit Filing of Reply Comments and Establish a Reply Comment Filing Date, Case No. IPC-E-10-22. [Kristine Sasser, Attorney]
Commissioner Redford asked Joe Miller, attorney for Yellowstone Power, if the Motion requests oral argument as well as an opportunity to offer evidence.
Mr. Miller replied that initially the Motion seeks only to establish a comment deadline for written comments, although he is also contemplating whether, within that period of time, to also ask for an evidentiary hearing to provide an opportunity to present evidence at oral argument. He said at a minimum, he wanted to get a comment deadline.
Commissioner Redford stated he had no objections to the request, and he made a motion to set a reply comment filing date of October 18, 2010. Commissioner Kempton seconded the motion, but also stated he had some concerns, which he had expressed at a previous meeting. He asked that if we are going to have comments, he would like to see them specifically address Staff’s comments, particularly pages 5 and 6 of the comments, which contain the more substantial of Staff’s arguments on this issue. He noted we have the Supreme Court case pending in the same area, and we have rules the Commission has interpreted from the Supreme Court decision, and there are a lot of things that border on “the nose of the camel going so far into the tent” that we wind up in a serious situation in deciding what PUC policy actually is. He stated that if there are comments filed, he would expect them to be precise in addressing the issues in terms of the Commission’s statement on what extraordinary circumstances are and what the Supreme Court’s decision is in terms of the authority of the Commission to grant these kinds of exceptions.
Commissioner Smith stated that some in the audience were having trouble hearing Commissioner Kempton’s comments so there were some puzzled looks. Commissioner Kempton said as he reads it, it has to do with Staff’s recommendation, where they cannot make a recommendation based on the evidence presented to them as it doesn’t meet the extraordinary circumstances associated with the request for the earlier PURPA rates. He said everything he said before addresses that.
Mr. Miller stated that because it was very difficult for those in the audience to hear the comments, he asked if he could be provided with a summary of President Kempton’s concerns.
Commissioner Smith stated that the air conditioning system had been turned off because it was hard to hear, so she asked if Commissioner Kempton could repeat what he said.
Commissioner Kempton asked that the minutes reflect what he had said previously. He stated that as an overview, he was concerned that Staff is unable to make a recommendation. He said specifically, Staff says the Yellowstone Agreement falls short of satisfying grandfathering criteria developed and relied upon by Idaho Power in judging eligibility for the avoided cost rates stated in Order No. 30744 that were in effect prior to March 16, 2010. Because it fails to meet the established criteria, Staff is unable to recommend that the Commission approve the Idaho Power/Yellowstone agreement. He stated that these concerns are on page 8, taken verbatim out of the recommendations of the Staff, and that’s where he is concerned. He said the basis for his concern resides in part on a statement he made in an earlier Decision Meeting on this issue of allowing the avoided cost of a later avoided cost adjustment to go into effect based on exceptions that don’t meet the specific criteria that is established for us in considering such exceptions. He said he still supports the motion, however.
Commissioner Smith stated she presumed that Yellowstone wishes to reply to Staff’s comments because it believes something has been missed and it does meet the criteria.
Mr. Miller replied that is a fair summary, in part.
The Commission voted unanimously to allow reply comments on or before October 18, 2010 in this matter. A vote was taken and it carried unanimously.
FULLY SUBMITTED MATTERS:
10. Deliberation re: Windland, Inc. Complaint (and Contingent Motion to Dismiss) -- Power Purchase Agreements -- Power County Wind Park North LLC and South LLC, Case No. PAC-E-10-05 (PacifiCorp). [Scott Woodbury, Attorney]
Commissioner Smith stated that item 10 would be deliberated privately by the Commission.
There was no further business before the Commission and Commissioner Smith adjourned the meeting.

__________________________________ ________________________
COMMISSION SECRETARY DATE OF APPROVAL

3