Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110124_3219.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KEMPTON COMMISSIONER SMITH COMMISSIONER REDFORD COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF FROM: KRISTINE SASSER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DATE: JANUARY 21, 2011 SUBJECT: BLUE RIBBON ENERGY'S LATE-FILED PETITION FOR INTERVENTION IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO ADDRESS AVOIDED COST ISSUES AND TO ADJUST THE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY CAP, CASE NO. GNR-E-10-04 BACKGROUND On November 5, 2010, Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp dba Rocky Mountain Power (Utilities) fied a Joint Petition requesting that the Commission initiate an investigation to address various avoided cost issues related to the Public Utilty Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURP A). The Petitioners requested that, while the investigation was underway, the Commission "lower the published avoided cost rate eligibilty cap from 10 aMW to 100 kW (to) be effective immediately. . . ." Petition at 7. On December 3, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Joint Petition, Notice of Modified Procedure, Notice of Intervention Deadline and Notice of Oral Argument. Order No. 3213 1. The Commission declined to immediately reduce the published avoided cost rate eligibilty cap; set a December 17, 2010, deadline for intervention; set comment and reply deadlines of December 22,2010, and January 19,2011, respectively; and set the matter for oral argument on Januar 27,2011. THE PETITION FOR LATE INTERVENTION On Januar 19,2011, Blue Ribbon Energy, LLC (Blue Ribbon), fied an Emergency Petition for Intervention pursuant to Rule 73, IPUC Rules of Procedure. Blue Ribbon asserts a direct and substantial interest in the above referenced case as a result of "three permitted PURP A . Wind Farms and a fourth wind farm application for a permit pending, all in process of DECISION MEMORANDUM i development in the State of Idaho. . . ." Petition at 4. Blue Ribbon states that its failure to meet the intervention deadline was caused by its inexperience in matters before the Commission. Blue Ribbon maintains that it was unaware that failure to fie for intervention would result in exclusion from paricipation as a pary in the case. ¡d. Blue Ribbon insists that its intervention wil not cause disruption in the case or prejudice any existing pary. Blue Ribbon further states that its participation wil not unduly broaden the existing issues in the case. Blue Ribbon agrees to be bound by any and all existing Orders and Notices in the case. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not oppose Blue Ribbon's petition for intervention subject to the restrictions enumerated in the Petition and Rule 73. In addition, none of the paricipating utilties have fied opposition to Blue Ribbon's request for intervenor status. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to grant Blue Ribbon's late-fied petition for intervention? ~~¿l.KristiASasser Deputy Attorney General ~44tA M:GNR-E-lO-04_ks DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 BLUE RIBBON ENERGY LLC 4515 South Ammon Road Ammon, Idaho, 83406 208-524-2414 (Owner MJ Humphris) 801-523-2090 (Ower Arron F. Jepson) RECElVED tUIl JAN l 9 AM 10:35 10' L'O ,"., .,'" f'L Ari r"'UU!_ ',J UTILITIES GOMM SSiON BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION-000000- IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY, AVISTA CORPORATION, AND PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, TO ADDRESS AVOIDED COST ISSUES AND TO ADJUST THE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY CAP Case No. GNR-E-10-04 -~~000- PETITION Coms Now Blue Ribbn Enegy LLC (heafter calle "BRE" or "Blue Ribbon") and respeetullysubmits, in copliance with Rule 62, this IPUC Rule 73 Petition for Intervention in Case number 32131, regarding the above reference Joint Utilities' Petition regarding avoided cost issues, and for the appointment or designation of Blue Ribbon as a Rule 36 "Intervenor" in the above titled case. Blue Ribbon petitions for and reuests an Order allowing its intervention, as specifcally allowed by Rule 73.. "unless a diferent time is provided by Order." POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PEnnON 1 This Petition and the followin Points and Authorities are submited in compliance wih Rule 53.04 (b), reuiring citations of all authorities relie upon by the petitioner, and in compliance with Rules 41, 61, and 62, as required by Rule 72. 2 The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (hereaftr "IPUC"or "Commission") has the authority to allow Intervention by Order (See IPUC Rules 36 and 73; all rules referred to in this pleading refer to the IPUC Rules of Procure, unless otherwise provided). 3 The time for Intervention prior to a Hearing may be lengthened or shortened by Order of the Commission (se Rule 73). 4 Rule 73 clearly allows late intervention as follows: Petitions not timely filed must state a substantial reason for delay. The Commission may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene that are not timely filed for failure to state good cause for untimely filing, to prevent disruption, . prejudice to existing parties or undue broadening of the issues, or for other reasons. Intervenors who do not file timely petitions are bound by orders and notices earlier entered as a condition of granting the untimely petition. 5 The wording, "Petitions not timely filed must state a substantial reason for delay," . is unclear as to whether the "delay" referred to, is a "delay" in the case, caused by the requested intervention, if granted, or alternately refers to a "delay" in filing the Petition itself. Based upon the later wording in Rule 73 (see below), which allows for late filing without stating "goo cause," it is resonable to conclude that the "delay" referred to above, is a "delay" in the above reference pending ~. Therefore, your Petitioner herein, Blue Ribbon, submits that it's intervention, if granted, wil cause no "delay" in the pending case, of any kind, and makes no request for a continuance of any hearing presently set, in the above title case, on 2 the IPUC's calendar. Furthermore, Blue Ribbon submits that the IPUC has broad and unlimited discretion in granting Petitns for Intervntin, and that Rule 73 expressly allow late intervention without the requirement of stating a "substantial reason" or "good cause" for a late filed Petition wherein it provides: The Commission may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene that are not timely filed for failure to state good cause for untimely filing. . . (emphasis added) 6 Furthermore, Rule 13 mandates that the IPUC's Rules of Proceure - "wil"- "be liberally construed to secure just, speedy and economical determination of all issues presented to the Commission." 7 Rule 74 Require the Granting of Blue Ribbon's Petition: Rule 74 states in clear language that the Commission or a presiding offcer thereof uwil grant intervention" of a Petition to Intervene which shows a direc and substantial interest in any part of the subject matter of a proceing, and which petion does not unduly broaden the issues. This rule does not distinguish betwn timely and late filed Petitions. 8 Nevertheless, Blue Ribbon states that it is inexperience in Commission matters and procdures and filing deadline requirements, and did not clearly understand the same, was unaware that there even existed IPUC Rules of Procure, and that it was quite unaware of the necessit of filing a writen Petition for Intervention in the above titled case, to avoid exclusion from partcipation in the case, and that it only now, for the first time, has acquired the most basic awareness of and familari with the aforesaid procures and rules. For this 3 ignorance Blue Ribbon apologizes and requests the Commission's liberal constrction of its Rules and of this Petition, in Blue Ribbon's favor. 9 Blue Ribbon's Intervention wil NOT (a) cause any disruption in the case, (b) prejudce any existing part, or (c) unduly broaden the existing issues of the case. 10 Blue Ribbon agrees to be bound by any and all existing Orders and Notices in the case, following intervention, excet as to the petition filing deadline. 11 Rule 41 Designation of Repreentaties: Pursuant to Rule 41, subseions 01 and 02, and Rule 43, subsection 04, Blue Ribbon discloses and states that it wil be represented by either or both of its two owners/members (LLC's have "members" not offcers - See Idaho Limited Liabilit Act, i.C. §53-608, et seq.), MJ Humphries and Arron Jepson, whose addresses and phone numbers are respectively: MJ Humphries Member of Blue Ribbon 4515 South Ammon Road Ammon, Idaho 83406 208-524-2414 blueribbonenergytmgmail.com Arron F. Jepson Member of Blue Ribbon 10660 South 540 East Sandy, Utah 84070 801-523-2090 ArronEsatmaol.com 12 Rule 71 Declaration of Diret and Substantial Interest: Blue Ribbon has three permitted PURPA Wind Farms and a fourth wind farm application for a permit pending, all in procss of development in the State of Idaho, and therefore claims, pursuant to Rule 71, a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the aforesaid and above titled proceding, regarding avoided 4 cost rates and size of PURPA Wind Farms. Blue Ribbon petitions and respectfully requests an immediate IPUC ORDER allowing and appointing it as a Rule 36 Intervenor in this proceding, Case Number 32131. CONCLUSION: Having coplied wit the IPUC Rules of Procure for Intervention, Blue Ribbon Energy LLC respectully requests that it Petition for Intervention be granted forthwith, and that it be aUowed to partcipate in all scheduled and upcoming hearings in this case. Respectully submited this 18, day of January, 2011, Blue Ribbon Energy LLC By~Arõñmber 5