19910715Technical Hearing Vol I.pdf

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMTSSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR AP.
PROVAL OF AN INTERCONNECTION
TARIFF FOR NON-UTILITY GENERA-
TION-SCHEDULE 72.
CASE NO. IPC.E.gO-20
BEF'ORE
COMMISSIONER DEAN J. MILLER (Presiding)
COMMISSIONER MARSHA H. SMITH
COMI4ISSIONER RALPH NELSON
PLACE:Commission Hearing Room
472 West BannockBoise, Idaho
c <-O:rc-
-t 11frB ,.-. Iu' o crl (?c) --
-utJa*,1 e- -.4*r -6a c) t-l
cn:IOY@L
DATE:July 3, 1991
VOLUIvIEI-Paqesl-22
COURT REPORTING
537 W, Bonnock P.O. Box 578
Suite 205 Boise, ldoho 83701
(208) s36e208
# ?o"L e
INAL
n:l
C)m
F1
tr
...Weofrer
M icrotr an sc ri pti onil by r BrironData
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l_0
1l-
L2
l_3
L4
l_5
L6
17
l_8
l_9
20
2L
22
23
24
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. Box 578 , Boise, ID 83701-
APPEARANCES
For ttre Staf f :SCOTT WOODBURY, Esq.
Deputy Attorney General
472 WesE WashingtonBoise, Idaho a372O
For Idaho Power
Company:
EVANS, KEANE, KOONTZ, BOYD
SIMKO & RIPLEY
by BARTON L. KLfNE, Esq.
and LARRY D. RIPLEY, Esq.
fdaho First Plaza-Suite l-70L
l-01- South Capitol BoulevardBoise, Idaho 83702
For A. W
Company,
BrownInc.:RODEN & ARKOOSHby C. TOM ARKOOSH, Esq.
802 West Bannock-Suite 900Boise, Idaho 83702
For Washington Water
Power Company:
PAINE, HAMBLEN, COFFIN
BROOKE & MILLER
by R. BLAIR STRONG, Esq.
1200 Washington Trust
Bank Building
Spokane, Washington 99204
For UP&L & PP&L:JOHN M. ERIKSSON, Esq.Utah Power & Light Company
l4O7 West North TempleSalt Lake City, Utah 84140
For the Industrial Engery
Producers of ldaho:
DAVIS WRIGHT TREI,IAINEby PETER J. RICHARDSON,
400 Jefferson Place
350 North Ninth StreetBoise, Idaho 83702
Esq.
25
APPEARANCES
I
I
t
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
r
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
T
I
T
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
l_0
l_ l-
L2
l_3
L4
l_6
15
L7
l-8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. Box 578 , Boise, ID B37Ol-
COMIITISSIONER MILLER: Let,S qo on the record,
then, in Case IPC-E-90-2O. We have before us today a
scheduling conference previously set in Order 23757, and the
number of parties has or at least the persons having an
interest in the case seems to be expanding; so in light of
that, 1et's take the appearances of the parties.
First, for Idaho Power Company.
MR. KLINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Appearj-ng on behalf of Idaho Power Company is Barton L.
Kline and Larry D. Ripley.
COMIUISSIONER MILLER: Mr. Arkoosh.
MR. ARKOOSH: Appearing on behalf of
A. W. Brown Company, Inc.
COII{MISSIONER MILLER: Mr. Strong.
I[R. STRONG: Appearing on behalf of the
Washington Water Power Company, R. Blair Strong of the firm
of Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke and Miller.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: And, Mr. Eriksson.
I[R. ERIKSSON: John Eriksson appearing for
Utah Power & Light Company and Pacific Power & Light
Company.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Mr. Richardson.
1
25
coLLoQUY
T
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
BOISE, IDAHO, WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, ].99]-, ].0:30 A. M.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MR. RICHARDSON: On behalf of the Independent
Energy Producers of ldaho, RoY L Eiguren and Peter J.
Richardson of the firn Davis Wright Tremaine, ML. Richardson
appearing.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: And, Mr. Woodbury.
MR. WOoDBURY: Scott Woodbury, Deputy Attorney
General, for the Commission Staff.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AIl right, this hearing
was convened for the purpose of examining the schedule to be
followed in the central proceedings here. The Commission
intends to take a recess momentarily to al1ow the parties to
discuss that. Before we do, is there anything that any of
the parties would think should profitably be brought to the
attention of the Commission before we take a short recess?
Im.. KLINE: We also have pending,
Mr. Chairman, a motion on behalf of the IEPI to vacate the
existing hearing. Are you intending to kind of hear those
j ointly?
COMMISSIONER MILLER: I think we,d have to
hear those simultaneously. I guess I was curious to know if
there was any possibility of all the matters that are in
question here being essentially worked out and then proposed
to the Commission or if the Commission is going to have to
actually to rule on something. It looks like we're going to
have to rule on something?
2
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
t_o
l- l_
L2
l_3
L4
l_5
L6
L7
l-8
l_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
t
t
T
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
t
T
I
T
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MR. KLINE: I don't know.
MR. STRONG: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSfONER MILLER: Mr. Strong.
MR. STRONG: I have a question, and I gluess it
is also in the nature of a concern, about the kind of guide
for Washington Water Power's input into the scheduling
conference and that is the precedential nature of this
hearing. Washington Water Power did not seek intervention
in this case, does not normally participate directly in the
cases of other utilities or concerning the rates rnrhich are
established by other utilities and is here at the invitation
of the Commission or order of the Commission, however we
characterize that.
My concern is that it be made clear in this
proceeding and we will make it clear through briefs or
otherwise that we do not see the issues that have been
touched upon in this proceeding as affecting directly the
avoided cost rates of the Washington Water Power Company.
Those rates have been established in a separate proceeding
and we believe that the bottom line issue with respect to
any avoided cost rate is whether those rates represent a
reasonable approximation of the avoided eost rates which are
pertinent to the compdny, and we do not view this proceeding
and would appreciate some input from other parties or the
reaction of the Commission as we do not view, let me back up
3
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.o. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
l_0
1t_
L2
l_3
L4
15
L6
t7
LB
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a second, we do not view this proceeding as initiating an
investigation to change Washington Water Power Company,s
avoided cost rates, and if it appears that we,re going on
that tangent, that the investigation is going to change
generically utilities' avoided cost rates, then j-t would be
our recommendation and motion that that certainly be done in
a separate proceeding and not in the context of this
proceeding.
COMMISSTONER MTLLER: A11 right.
It{R. KLINE: Mr. Chai-rman?
COMMISSIONER MILT.ER: A11 right, letrs try and
move forward a litt1e bit in this proceeding before we take
a recess, then. Mr. Kline.
MR. KLINE: Yes, f have to ask a question
first, f guess. Yesterday we filed a response to the motion
of the Independent Energy Producers of Idaho, to their
motion to vacate, and in that response, w€ addressed a
similar concern to that raised by counsel for Washington
Water Power Company.
I think there is a concern and there is
certainly a potential for a problem with procedural due
process and notice if we are by pulling the other utilities
in and creating perhaps somethinlJ more than what we had
intended to do on simply reconsideration of a tariff that we
had filed, I think there's a very good argument that can be
4
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 8370L
10
l_ l_
t2
l-3
L4
L5
L6
L7
l-8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
coLLoQUY
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
E
l
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
made. Perhaps it would make sense for us to strongly
consider carving out that issue, the generic rtavoided costrt
issue, that got raised in this proceeding and treating it
separately; so I think we really need to consider that.
What triggered that response, Mr. Chairman, is
in the motion to vacate filed by the IEPI, they essentially
used as the grounds for wanting to vacate the hearing the
fact that the other utilities had been included in this
proceeding, and as a result, they felt that they had been
somehow disadvantaged with respect to the timing of what
they needed to do; so I think that issue is very much on the
table, what is the function of the generic avoided cost
issue and is it wise to be considering that within the
context of a petition for reconsideration on a tariff filing
that Idaho Power made.
COMMISSIONER MfLLER: Good. Perhaps what we
ought to do is take Mr. Richardson,s comments with respect
to his motion and then I think we would have before us
enough information we might be able to make some comments
on; so, Mr. Richardson, why don't we hear from you.
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I was frankly a little surprised at the vigor
of fdaho Pourer's response to our simple motion for more time
to file testimony. Idaho Power's primary concerns appear to
be that this case is going to expand beyond the parameters
5
10
Ll-
L2
l-3
L4
15
L6
L7
l_8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
HEDRICK COURT REPORTTNG
P.O. Box 578, Boise, fD 83701
25
coLLoQuY
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
r
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
that you set in the order granting rehearing. We thought
your order was explicit, two relatively discrete issues for
rehearing.
One issue does in fact irnplicate the other
utiliLies; so you obviously properly notified them that this
issue may impact their generic avoided cost rate. There's
really no mystery here as to what's before the Commission.
You made it explicit. I'11 quote from your Order. ttThe
inclusion of interconnect costs as a factor in the
administrative determination of avoided costs is a
meritorj-ous issue deserving more detailed investigation. tt
You saj-d, ttW€ grant reconsideration on this point and
because of the potential generic implications of our
decision on calculation of avoided costs and future QF
contracts, we invite the participation of the other
utilities. rr
The other issue that you granted
reconsideration on, and again quoting from Order 237L8, you
stated, rrBrown further contends that the .7 percent
maintenance charge assessed by (not negotiated with) Idaho
Power does not accurately or reasonably reflect actual
costs. Reference Schedule No. 72, Operation and Maintenance
obligations and Expenses. Running through some
computations, Brown contends that over the life of a 35-year
contract, it wiII have paid to replace the interconnection
6
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, fD 83701-
1-0
l_ l_
L2
13
L4
l-5
L6
L7
l_8
L9
20
21
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
n
t
I
I
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
equipment every seven to twelve years. Brown therefore
contends that the charges are exorbitant. " You concluded
that the Commission grants reconsideration as to the
calculation and reasonableness of the operation and
maintenance charges set forth in Schedule 72.
fwo very diserete issues, I think very
well-defined issues. The IEPI, obviously, does not object
to your issuing a further notice or order to allay Idaho
Power's fears that this case will explode beyond its
original bounds, but we're here for a different reason.
We,re obviously satsified with the clarity and scope of the
proceeding. we just need more time in which to prepare our
expert witness' testimony.
I'11 explain to you a litt1e further why we
need that additional time. The calculation of the O.7
percent monthly maintenance charge is the focus of our
efforts. We did not reinitiate reconsideration of the
issue, A. w. Brown did. We're glad he did, but you must
remember that we are starting from sguare one in terms of
understanding the impaet and derivation of that O.7
percent.
We were, therefore, pleased by the original
schedule that you established that called for A. W. Brown to
take the lead and file its testimony first. Your original
schedule called for Brotm to prefile on June l-7th. We
7
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. Box 578 , Boise, ID 83701-
10
l_L
L2
l_3
L4
l_5
L6
17
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
I
I
n
I
I
t
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
expected to have time to review his testimony and, if
necessary, augrment any deficiencies when our prefiled date
came around on JulY 3.
WeII, A. W. Brown didn't file on the l-7th.
The Commission's records indicate he filed late in the day
on the l-8th. In addition, he didn't serve anyone except for
the Commission and Idaho Pori.rer. We didn't obtain a copy of
his testimony until the 24Eh; so we didn't get a chance to
review his testimony until the 24E}e.
Upon that review, it became apparent that
although certainly relevant and certainly touching the
issues, Brown's testimony primarily focused on his project,s
cost as an example of the inappropriate level of the .7
percent maintenance charge. The IEPf has a broader interest
in determining the source and validity of that number for
its generic application on Idaho Power's system.
In short, w€ felt that A. W. Brown,s
testimony, while a good start from a non-expert, needed
substantial buttressing from an expert in the field;
therefore, on the very next day after receipt of his
testimony, we filed this motj-on for additional time and we
also retained an expert to investigate the issues.
On the day after that, w€ propounded our first
discovery request to Idaho Power. We have not been dilatory
in proscecuting the proceeding from the moment we realized
B
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
l_0
l_1
t2
l_3
L4
L5
L6
L7
l_8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
coLLoQUY
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
that in fact the record wasn't going to be sufficient for
you to make an accurate determination of the validity of
that .7 number.
Nonr, rare understand that this proceeding was
initiated as a rehearing and, therefore, Idaho Power asserts
that you are under time constraints provided for by
statute. We disagree. The nature of this case is no longer
a simple rehearing of Idaho Power's application for approval
of Schedule 72. It now involves parties and issues not part
of the original proceeding. To limit those parties in the
exploration of those issues to the, by any measure, very
limited time constraints imposed by reconsideration is very
near denial of our due process rights to fully explore the
new parameters of the proceeding.
We would, therefore, urge you to grant our
simple request for more time and also urge you to not force
the parties to adhere to the extremely restricted schedule
that would be imposed upon us if this proceeding were
considered to be a rehearing, which it is not entirely.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Thank you,
Mr. Richardson. Mr. Kliner dny rebuttal?
MR. KLINE: Just a couple. I think what
counsel discussed with you with respect to the fact that
this thing has expanded and quoting from his motion to
9
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701
l_0
Ll_
L2
l-3
L4
15
L6
L7
l_8
t9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
coLLoQUY
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
vacate, he said, trHowever, by expanding the reach of this
proceeding beyond the original parties, the Commission has
in effect created a new case and by implication obviated the
application of the reconsideration time limits,tt and that is
what triggered our primary concern about the fact that in
fact there is a separate case being created out there.
I think it may have also triggered Mr. Strongrs
concern about just exactly what is the Washington Water
Power,s status in this case at this point; so I would again
renew my suggestion, I guess, that perhaps it might make
good sense to carve this issue out and address it outside
the parameters of this petition for reconsideratj-on. Again,
I think Mr. Richardson is correct that if we do that we can
have enough time to address that issue as far as the avoided
cost issues that he raises in his motion in a separate
proceeding.
As far as whether or not the IEPI has provided
adequate grounds to support its motion to vacate, while the
IEPI did not petition for reconsideration, they certainly
were a party from the beginning and we recognize that and
they knew when the prefiling dates were, they knew when the
hearing was going to be, and I think at this point in time
what we're really seeing is they've decided at the eleventh
hour to get into action in this case, and I'm not really
sure that the other parties are necessarily obligated to
t-0
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 8370L
l_0
l_1
L2
l_3
L4
15
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
I
I
I
t
t
E
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
t
t
I
E
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
t
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
adjust the schedule that we've all worked out in order to
accommodate the fact that they'd like to get into it now and
that they're not satisfied with what Mr. Brown has done in
presenting his case.
on the other hand, these issues are not new
ones. Idaho Pornrer has signed approximately 60 contracts
with cogenerators and small power producers and every one of
those contracts or the vast majority of those contracts have
included the 7/LO of a percent or the 4/L0 of a percent, the
construction of the line. Equipment has substantially been
the same in all of them, and frankly, periodically we've had
to kind of go through and explain to a new set of
cogenerators and a new set of Commission Staff just exactly
where those numbers come from and how we do it, and rare'd
like to get the matter resolved; so even I don't really
think the IEPI has carried its burden as far as alleging
adequate grounds to vacate the hearing, we certainly
wouldn't object to at least some kind of limited extension
of time in which to allow them to participate.
We filed with the response to their motion a
proposed schedule which we bel-ieve nould allour the parties
to proceed and the Commission to proceed and get this thing
done within the time constraints of the statute on
reconsideration. It would certainly make it easier, too, if
we could take the issue on the effect on avoided costs out
t_ l_
10
l- t-
L2
l_3
L4
l_5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
25
COLLOQUY
n
l
r
u
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
T
r
r
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
l-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
of the reconsideration issue and if all we really had left
at that point was whether or not the 7/LO of a percent is a
proper number that would sure make that a much more doable
goal; so that's kind of our position. We're willing to look
at some kind of limited extension of time, but we would hope
that it doesn't extend forever.
MR. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman.
COI,IMISSIONER MILLER: Yes, Mr. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: Thank you. We would object
to the further bifurcating this proceeding out again. It
seems there's some economies of scale or efficiencies here
that we're going to be losing by creating another case out
of this original proceedj-ng. I think that the Commission
would be, at least our time and I think everyone eIse,s time
would be more efficiently used if we proceeded with the two
issues in the case, go ahead and resolve them, give us
enough time to get the issues fu1ly investigated and get
some decent testimony in front of you, but making two cases
out of what was one, actually, you're going to have four
cases out of what was originally one when this whole thing
started, seems going beyond the pale; so we would suggest i
for efficiency purposes, let's keep it all together and give
us a 1ittIe more time to get some decent testimony in front
of you. We're not talking months, Mt. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Why does it make a I
L2,
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 8370L
COLLOQUY
l_0
LL
L2
L3
L4
l_5
l-5
L7
l_8
1,9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
I
I
u
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
difference to you if you're only concerned with the 7/LO of
a percent issue?
MR. RfCHARDSON: That's our primary concern,
Mr. Chairman, but I would hesitate to represent that the
IEPI is not at aII concerned with the other issue as well.
ff you opened up another proceeding, I'ilI sure we would be
involved in that one as weII. It seems that it's so much
easier to get both issues resolved in one proceeding rather
than splitting it up again into a further proceeding, and
Iike I Sdy, we're only asking for probably just a couple
more weeks here which may push us beyond the August 2
deadline, unfortunately, but I just think that would be the
most efficient way to handle things.
MR. ERIKSSON: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Commissioner Smith had a
question.
COMMISSIONER SMITH: Yes, I heard the August 2
date before. Is the August 2 date what people have
calculated as the last day upon which we can have our record
submitted or is that when we have to have our order out?
MR. RICHARDSON: My calculation of the
rehearing schedule indicates August 2 is the date you must
finally hear the matter. You then have
COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay, then we can have
briefs after?
l_3
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
L0
l- l_
1-2
l_3
L4
l-5
t_6
L7
L8
l_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
t
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
r
I
I
n
r
I
I
T
T
t
T
t
T
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MR. RICHARDSON: No, that,s the date you must
have the matter finally submitted. You can,t have
submissions after that in terms of briefs or subsequent
pleadings.
MR. KLINE: You then have the 28 days after
that to get the order out.
COMMISSIONER SMITH: Okay.
MR. KLINE: I just have one more issue that
Ird like to lay out on the table because I think itrs
something that's important and that is the question of
notice. Again, it goes to the fact that we have expanded
what started out as I thought a fairly simple tariff
application to include the other two utilities, and based on
the information or the service list that I had reeeived, it
sure looked to me like we had not given notice broadly
enough to perhaps cover the small power producers and
cogenerators who might be affected by Washington Water Power
and Utah Power & Light.
Counsel for Staff Mr. Woodbury has given me a
list of people that he apparently sent it out to. I have
not had an opportunity to look at that list, nor do I
believe that the attorneys for the other utilities have had
a chance to look at that list, but my concern is werre kind
of backing into something where we have had lots of, not
problems, but certainly we recognize that giving notice to
74
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
l_0
t- l-
L2
l_3
14
t-5
16
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
n
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
coltenerators and small power producers in advance of time to
allow them to participate any time there,s an avoided cost
or a possible change in avoided cost is a very important
thing to do, and f really think the idea perhaps of carving
out this issue of interconnection costs as they affect
avoided costs and noticing that up separately and making
sure that we give notice to the world for all three
utilities may save us some real grief in the future. Thatrs
why I'm raising it.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: All right.
MR. ERIKSSON: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Mr. EriKsson.
MR. ERIKSSON: It seems that since everyone
else has stated their position on this, I,d like to state
the position of the companies and that is that likewise the
companies feel that the best uray to handle this generic
issue would be in a separate proceeding as described by
Mr. Kline and Mr. Strong.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Okay, thank you. A11
right, now I think we'II take a brief recess. I think what
we could do perhaps is
lm.. RICHARDSON: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Do you have something to
add now still?
I[R. RICHARDSON: Yeah, f ,d just like to
l-5
HEDRICK COURT REPORTTNG
P.O. Box 578, Boise, fD 83701
l_0
11
12
13
L4
l-5
16
L7
l_8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
coLLoQUY
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
1_
2
3
4
5
5
7
I
9
reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the issue of the
interconnection costs, these issues have been involved in
this proceedingT from Day one, and in terms of notice, Idaho
Power's concern with notice is certainly commendable. I
think, however, the Commission doesn't have a problem of due
process notice of this issue that is now before it.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: A11 right, we,re going
to take a recess in both cases and we're going to come back
sometime in one of the cases.
(Recess. )
COMMISSIONER MILLER: A11 right, we'II go back
on the record in the second case, 9O-2O, the tariff case.
To start out, I think the Commission wants to apoloqize Eo
the parties for getting these cases to a procedural
circumstance that has not worked out and ure hope that we are
now prepared to get things straightened out so that both
cases can proceed to an orderly conclusion.
What we would like to suggest in this case,
the tariff case, is, af course, that Ehe 7/LO issue remains
an issue in this case. With respect to the interconnection
issuer w€ would like to keep that in this case, but in this
manner; that is, the preliminary question to be or the
initial question to be resolved is are interconnection costs
included in avoided costs as they are presently calculated.
The Commission in an effort to address that
L6
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
l_0
L1
L2
13
L4
l_5
l-6
L7
l-8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
coLLoQuY
t
I
il
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
question invited the other utilities to participate here
because those avoided cost rates were set for all those
utilities in a conmon manner and a common methodology. If
the answer to that question is yes, then we believe the
issue is at an end; that is, if the preceding methodology
resulted in the inclusion of interconnection costs, then we
think that ends the inquiry; so if we come to the conclusion
in this case that y€s, they are already in avoided costs,
thereby making the charging of interconneetion costs
appropriate, that would be an end of the issue.
If we eome to the conclusion that for some
reason or another the answer is no, they have not been
included in avoided costs, then we think the subsequent
process of determining what they should be and how they
should be included in avoided eosts would be a matter for a
separate case; so we don't want to use this case to come
anywhere close to verging on the recalculation of avoided
costs for any utility. We want to use this case to reach
that question of under the existing methodology were they
included, and once we answer that question, w€ will knor,.r
where we go.
If the answer is yes, then the matter is at an
end. If the answer is no, we will have to convene some
other proceeding involving all of the parties with proper
notice to all the other possible participants to determine
L7
l_o
1l-
t2
l_3
1,4
l-5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
21,
22
23
24
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
25
coLLoQUY
I
n
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
the quantification and the methodology for including those
in the avoided cost rates; so with that clarification, w€
would like to keep both issues together and we would like to
get the case decided prornptly.
In that regard, the Commission believes that
we could be available for a hearing on Thursday, August Lst,
and with that ultimate deadline to shoot for when we adjourn
this prehearing conferencer we would like you to work on a
schedule of events leading up to a hearing on August Lst.
Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Nelson, have I stated
our -- anything you would like to add on how we would like
this case to proceed?
COMMISSIONER NELSON: You,ve done a very good
job, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SI,IITH: Great job. I noticed
Mr. Purdy looked askance at aII of this. First, we do note
on the calendar that the Washington Water Power case
involving the Potlatch contract is scheduled to commence at
9:30, July 30th, and has been blocked for three days, and if
anybody here really thinks that's going to take three days,
they should speak now because we think two days is adequate.
MR. PURDY: I'm sorry, did you say that was
scheduled to begin the 30th? I recall the 29t-h.
COMMISSfONER SMITH: No, it,s Tuesday, the
3oth.
l_8
HEDRICK COURT REPORTTNG
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
t0
1t_
L2
13
L4
l_5
1,6
17
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
coLLoQUY
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COMMISSIONER SMITH: Mr. Strong, is there any
reason why you think that should take three fu1l days?
MR. STRONG: Madam Commissioner, I,rl reaI1y
not in a position to speak to how long it will take. I
haven,t reviewed the testimony and so I can't realIy
honestly say. I'm sorry, we just don't have the people here
to give you an informed opinion.
It{R. PURDY: The Staff will call two witnesses
at that hearing. If the Company does not call an inordinate
number of witnesses, I don't see a problem. It,s always
hard to speculate.
MR. STRONG: My understanding, limited though
it is because I'm not assisting in the preparation of that
case, is that there were going to be two or perhaps three
company witnesses for Washington Water Power and one for
Potlatch if that is of any assistance.
MR. KLINE: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can add
something that will help, let's put it that way. I
recognize that the August 2nd date is that magic date for
getting the thing heard for petitions of reconsideration,
but I do believe and Idaho Power would be willing to extend
that date and vacate that date. I think we're the only ones
that would be adversely affected and we would be the ones
that would be able to do that waiver if that would assist in
gretting this thing resolved.
L9
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
l_0
l_ l_
L2
l-3
L4
l_5
l-6
L7
l_8
l_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
l-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
We want to get it resolved. We don,t rnrant to
try and do it on a jammed schedule if we can avoid it. I
would suggest we even look into September and I think that
gives us enougth time, everybody enough time, to do whatever
discovery they have to do, those kinds of things. We want
to do it right the first time.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Is there any other party
who would feel themselves prejudiced by waiving the
statutory time for decision in the reconsideration petitions
and finding a date beyond the statutory time?
Mr. Arkoosh, would you feel prejudiced at
a]-l?
MR. ARKOOSH: No. I do have sort of a problem
that I've never been able to resolve and f've communicated
it through the Staff, Mr. Brown hasn't been available to me
since mid last week, but my guess is if we continue with the
complaint case, it will be set on the same datei so I guess
I,11 have to wait and see what the Commission's ruling is.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: We,11 get to that in
just a minute.
l4R. ARKOOSH: This case, it may well be that
he can't be here, but it looks as though these issues are
going to be adequately briefed and he may well be able to be
here. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Mr. Strong, dDy
20
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P. O. Box 578 , Boise, ID 83701-
10
l- l_
L2
l_3
L4
15
L6
L7
l_8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
COLLOQUY
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
prejudice to you? Obviously, I can't see any.
MR. STRONG: No, and we,re not a party to this
proceeding at all, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER SMITH: No, this is the
proceeding you're a party to.
MR. STRONG: We,re talking about 9L-2? Okay,
9O-2O, Dor w€ have no objection.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Same with you,
Mr. Eriksson?
MR. ERIKSSON: Likewise.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Mr. Richardson, no
prejudice to you?
MR. RICHARDSON: Obviously, Mr. Chairman,
we,re just concerned that Idaho Power have sufficient time
to respond to our production requests in a complete manner
and we want to accommodate that in anlnnray we can; so werre
pleased with Mr. Kline's suggestion.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Why donrt we do this
then, rather than us trying to pick out a date right now,
why don,t when we adjourn the parties can discuss a date
that appears to be open on the Commission calendar and that
would be convenient to you.
A11 right, anything else to be taken up, then,
in the 9O-2O case? If not, w€ witl adjourn our hearing in
that case and then take up again in 9l--2.
(The Hearing recessed at L1:45 a.m. )
2L
10
11
L2
l-3
L4
L7
18
L9
20
2L
l-5
L6
22
23
24
25
coLLoQUY
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 83701-
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
l_0
1l-
L2
l_3
L4
l-6
L7
18
L9
l_5
20
2L
22
23
24
HEDRICK COURT REPORTING
P.O. Box 578, Boise, ID 8370L
AUTHENTICATION
Ihis is to certify that the foregoing
proceedings held in the matter of the application of Idaho
Power Company for approval of an interconnection tariff for
non-utility generation-Schedule 72, commencing at l-0:30 d.[. r
on Wednesday, JuIy 3, l-991-, dt the Commission Hearing Room,
472 WesE Washington, Boj-se, Idaho, is a true and correct
transcript of said proceedings and the original thereof for
the file of the Commission.
sT4#p
A.smL 1S OA Qq-
S. BUCYified Shorthand Reporter
! itt
22
25
AUTHENTICATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I