20201117_ej4.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

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

FROM: EDWARD JEWELL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2020

SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF THE FORMAL COMPLAINT OF WOOD HYDRO
AGAINST IDAHO POWER COMPANY; CASE NO. IPC-E-20-28.

On June 25, 2020, Wood Hydro, LLC (“Wood Hydro”) filed a formal complaint
against Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power” or “Company”) alleging Idaho Power improperly
withheld payments to Wood Hydro under a Firm Energy Sales Agreement (“FESA”) entered into
in 1993 for the energy generated by the Mile 28 Hydro Generation Facility (“Mile 28 Hydro”)
pursuant to the Commission’s implementation of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (“PURPA”).
On July 13, 2020, the Commission issued a Summons to Idaho Power directing the
Company to answer within 21 days.
On August 3, 2020, the Company filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint. In its
Cross-Complaint, Idaho Power alleged that the Rock Creek #2 QF and Lowline #2 QF had
permanently curtailed their generation and owed the Company liquidated damages according to
their respective FESA’s.
On August 27, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Cross-Complaint. Order No.
34764. Concurrently, the Commission issued Summonses to Central Rivers Power US, LLC
(“Central Rivers Power”) and Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (“Enel Green Power North
America”) on behalf of the Lowline #2 QF and Rock Creek # 2 QF. The Notice and the
Summonses set simultaneous 21-day periods to respond to Idaho Power’s Cross-Complaint and
Answer.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
On September 17, 2020, Central Rivers Power filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of
Lowline #2. Enel Green Power North America filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Rock
Creek #2. Wood Hydro filed a Reply on behalf of Mile 28 Hydro. The matter was fully
submitted and with the Commission for deliberation.
On November 9, 2020, Idaho Power filed a Joint Motion to Stay. The Company
states the parties “are engaged in settlement discussions that the Parties anticipate will result in a
Settlement Stipulation to be submitted to the Commission for its review that would resolve all
issues raised in this proceeding, and ask that the Commission grant this stay of proceedings to
maintain the present status quo while the Parties finalize the Settlement Stipulation and submit
the same to the Commission for its review.” Joint Motion to Stay at 2.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to grant the Joint Motion to Stay and stay the proceedings
until a Settlement Stipulation is submitted for Commission review, or until a request to lift the
stay of proceedings is filed if settlement negotiations are unsuccessful?

__________________________
Edward J. Jewell
Deputy Attorney General

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-20-28\memos\IPCE2028_dec memo 3_ej.doc