20170726_Daphne1.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: DAPHNE HUANG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: JULY 26, 2017

SUBJECT: HOW TO PROCESS THE CASE: MODIFIED PROCEDURE VS.
TECHNICAL HEARING, CASE NO. GNR-E-17-02

This case was initiated after Idaho Power objected to Commission Staff’s proposed
annual update to published avoided cost rates for contracts entered between utilities and
qualifying facility (QF) projects under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). See
Case Nos. IPC-E-17-07, PAC-E-17-05, AVU-E-17-02. Since 2013, Staff has annually
calculated and published standard avoided cost rates using the U.S. Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA) Mountain Region natural gas forecast. See Order Nos. 32697, 32817,
33041, 33305, 33538. Idaho Power objected to Staff’s May 2017 update, asserting that Staff
should have used the EIA’s Henry Hub forecast rather than the EIA’s Mountain Region forecast
in making its calculations. The Commission approved Staff’s proposed published avoided cost
rates as reasonable, but directed the Commission Secretary to accept Idaho Power’s objection as
an Application to initiate a generic proceeding to consider Idaho Power’s proposed change.
Order No. 33773. The Commission issued a Notice of the generic proceeding, and set a deadline
for petitions to intervene. Order No. 33778.
The Commission received and granted Petitions to Intervene by Avista Corporation,
the Idaho Hydroelectric Power Producers Trust dba Idahydro, Renewable Energy Coalition
(REC), the J.R. Simplot Company, and Tamarack Energy Partnership (TEP). Order Nos. 33788,
33794, 33802, 33807, 33809. The question before the Commission is how to process the case.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2

THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
The parties have agreed, through informal communications, that the sole issue in this
case is whether Staff should use the EIA’s Henry Hub forecast instead of the EIA’s Mountain
Region forecast in calculating published avoided cost rates each year. Staff believes its position
can be adequately presented to the Commission via written comments, but is not opposed to a
technical hearing. In an e-mail to all parties after the Commission issued its Notice of
Application, Staff proposed processing the case via modified procedure, and inquired as to the
parties’ positions.
Idaho Power and Avista agreed that modified procedure was appropriate. Counsel for
Simplot indicated that “all of the non-utility intervenors [conferred and] are in agreement that
modified procedure is not appropriate [but] believe there are significant technical and factual
issues implicated such that a technical hearing is warranted.”1 Staff proposed that Simplot file a
joint motion to set a technical hearing, stating why their “positions cannot be adequately
presented in comments,” to which opposing parties could object. No party responded either
formally (motion to the Commission) or informally (e-mail to all parties).
A week later, Staff again e-mailed parties suggesting Staff could put the question of
how to process the matter “before the Commission based on the parties’ informal
representations.” Simplot suggested that the parties meet to confer; Staff responded that, given
“the apparent divide” in the parties’ views about how to proceed, the “question should go to the
Commissioners for a decision.” REC stated it “believes this proceeding raises some important
factual and policy considerations, and would prefer to present an expert witness and have the
opportunity to conduct a hearing.” The following week, Staff reiterated its position that Staff
believes it can adequately present its position through modified procedure but is not opposed to a
technical hearing, and also provided citations to Commission rules on modified procedure. Staff
stated it would prepare a decision memo summarizing the parties’ positions, but continued to be
open to other suggestions.
COMMISSION DECISION
Commission Rules provide that the Commission “may preliminarily find that the
public interest may not require a hearing to consider the issues presented in a proceeding and that

1 The parties’ positions, quoted in this memorandum, are taken from e-mails sent to all parties, and can be provided
for the record if needed.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3
the proceeding may be processed under modified procedure, i.e., by written submissions rather
than a hearing.” IDAPA 31.01.01.201. The Commission processes most cases without a
technical hearing, noting that modified procedure and written comments have proven to be an
effective means for obtaining public input and participation. Under Commission Rules, “[a]ny
person affected by the proposal of the moving party may file a written protest, support or
comment before the deadline of the notice of modified procedure.” IDAPA 31.01.01.203. Such
comments “must contain a statement of the reasons for the protest, support or comment, but need
not ask for a hearing.” Id. Also, anyone “desiring a hearing must specifically request a hearing
in their written protests or comments.” Id. The Commission will consider all timely-filed
comments “and may set the matter for hearing or may decide the matter and issue its order on the
basis of the written positions before it.” IDAPA 31.01.01.204.
Given the parties’ informally expressed positions, how does the Commission wish to
proceed?
1. Does the Commission wish to hear more from the parties about how they want to
proceed? If so, does the Commission wish to set a deadline for written statements, or set a date
and time to consider oral arguments?
2. If the Commission does not need to hear more from the parties, does it wish to
process the case via modified procedure as proposed by Staff, Idaho Power, and Avista, and
decide later whether to set a hearing or decide the issue before it based on written comments
alone? Or does the Commission wish to set the matter for a technical hearing as proposed by
Simplot and REC?

M:GNR-E-17-02_djh