Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171019_Daphne1.pdfDECISION MEMORANDUM 1 DECISION MEMORANDUM TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER COMMISSIONER RAPER COMMISSIONER ANDERSON COMMISSION SECRETARY COMMISSION STAFF FROM: DAPHNE HUANG DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2017 SUBJECT: IDAHO POWER’S AND SHOROCK’S STIPULATED MOTION TO SEPARATE DISPUTED ISSUES FROM THE APPLICATION TO APPROVE THEIR AGREEMENT, CASE NO. IPC-E-17-14 On September 28, 2017, Idaho Power Company applied to the Commission to approve or reject its Energy Sales Agreement (“Agreement”) with Shorock Hydro, Inc. (“Shorock”). The Agreement falls under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), and is a replacement contract for the sale of electric energy to Idaho Power from Shorock’s Rock Creek 1 Hydro project (“Facility”) near Twin Falls, Idaho. Shorock objects to the Company’s inclusion in the Agreement of: (1) “90%/110%” provisions (relating to surplus energy); and (2) provisions relating to Operation and Maintenance (O&M) charges in the Generator Interconnection Agreement. Application at 2. However, Shorock and Idaho Power agreed to submit the Agreement for Commission approval, and initially agreed to address the disputed issues in their comments, for the Commission to resolve. Id. Idaho Power requested a final Commission decision before January 15, 2018, when the existing contract expires. Id. at 6. The Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure with comment deadlines. Order No. 33912. On October 16, 2017, Idaho Power and Shorock filed a stipulated motion to separate the disputed issues from the request to approve their Agreement. Also, the Renewable Energy Coalition (REC) filed a petition to intervene on October 12, 2017, which will be addressed separately, after the deadline for objections has passed. Idaho Power’s and Shorock’s stipulated motion is now before the Commission. DECISION MEMORANDUM 2 STIPULATED MOTION Idaho Power and Shorock (hereafter the “Parties”) state they were informed that third parties intended to intervene in this case. Motion at 2. The third parties expressed “desire to conduct potentially extensive discovery and request a technical hearing regarding the 90%/110% and O&M issues.” Id. This raised concern by the Parties that the processing of their Application would be delayed, “potentially causing the existing contract to lapse, [and] endangering the designation of the Rock Creek 1 Hydro Facility as a network resource on Idaho Power’s system.” Id. Accordingly, the Parties agreed to separate the approval of the Agreement from determination of the 90%/110% and O&M issues, but agreed that the Agreement would “remain subject to the outcome of a Commission ruling” on the disputed issues in the future. Id. at 2-3. The Parties agreed that Shorock, possibly in conjunction with other interested parties, would file a separate Application or Complaint challenging Idaho Power’s inclusion of 90%/110% and O&M provisions in its energy sales agreements. Id. The Parties ask that the Commission vacate the procedural schedule in Order No. 33912, and set a 21-day comment period under modified procedure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has no objection to the Parties’ stipulated motion. Staff agrees to the 21-day comment period proposed by the Parties, and recommends setting a deadline of 14 days after comments are due for the Company to reply. COMMISSION DECISION Does the Commission wish to vacate the procedural schedule set in Order No. 33912, and order a 21-day comment period, as requested by the Parties, and a 14-day reply period as proposed by Staff? I:\Legal\LMEMOS\IPCE1714_djh2.doc