20110222_3250.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KEMPTON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF

FROM: KRISTINE SASSER
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2011

SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMISSION’S INVESTIGATION INTO
DISAGGREGATION AND AN APPROPRIATE PUBLISHED AVOIDED
COST RATE ELIGIBILITY CAP STRUCTURE, CASE NO. GNR-E-11-01
(the 2nd phase of GNR-E-10-04)

BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2010, Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp
dba Rocky Mountain Power (Utilities) filed a Joint Petition requesting that the Commission
initiate an investigation to address various avoided cost issues related to the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The Petitioners requested that, while the
investigation was underway, the Commission “lower the published avoided cost rate eligibility
cap from 10 aMW to 100 kW [to] be effective immediately. . . .” Petition at 7.
The Commission declined to immediately reduce the published avoided cost rate
eligibility cap and determined that the Joint Petition should be processed under Modified
Procedure. On February 7, 2011, following the submission of comments, reply comments and
oral argument, the Commission issued an Order temporarily reducing the published avoided cost
rate eligibility cap from 10 aMW to 100 kW for wind and solar QFs only. Order No. 32176.
The Commission expressed concern over large QFs disaggregating into smaller projects in order
to qualify for a published avoided cost rate that does not accurately reflect the utility’s true
avoided cost. Consequently, the Commission initiated additional proceedings to investigate a
published avoided cost rate eligibility cap structure that: (1) allows small wind and solar QFs to
avail themselves of published rates for projects producing 10 aMW or less; and (2) prevents
large QFs from disaggregating in order to obtain a published avoided cost rate that exceeds a
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
utility’s avoided cost. Id. at 11. The Commission directed the parties to meet informally to
establish a schedule consistent with a technical hearing to occur during the week of May 9, 2011.
THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE
Pursuant to the Commission’s directive in Order No. 32176, Staff contacted the
parties to propose a schedule. None of the parties to the GNR-E-10-04 case opposed the
following procedural schedule:

Deadline for intervention 7 days from the issuance of the Notice in this case
Prefiled testimony deadline March 25, 2011
Rebuttal testimony deadline April 22, 2011
Technical hearing week of May 9, 2011

The parties also agreed that answers to discovery should be provided as soon as possible but no
later than 21 days from the date of the discovery request. Current parties to the GNR-E-10-04
case will be added as parties to the GNR-E-11-01 docket automatically.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to adopt the schedule proposed by the parties and issue a
Notice of Inquiry?

M:GNR-E-11-01_ks