20140320acceptance_of_filing_order_no_32997.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
March 20.2014
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AVISTA )
CORPORATION’S 2013 ELECTRIC )CASE NO.AVU-E-13-07
INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN )
)ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
)
)ORDER NO.32997
_______________________________________________________________________________
)
On August 29,2013 Avista Corporation dba Avista Utilities (“Avista”or the
“Company”)filed its 2013 Electric Integrated Resource Plan (‘IRP”).1 On September 10,2013
the Commission issued a Notice of Filing and Notice of Modified Procedure allowing interested
parties until November 13,2013,to comment on the IRP.See Order No.32888.The
Commission Staff,Idaho Conservation League (“ICL”),Snake River Alliance (“SRA”),and
Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center (“SCMEIC”)2 filed written
comments,and the Company filed a reply.
Having reviewed the record,including the IRP,the comments,and the reply,the
Commission issues this Order accepting the Company’s 2013 Electric IRP.
BACKGROUND
An IRP is a utility’s status report on its ongoing,changing plans to adequately and
reliably serve its customers at the lowest system cost and least risk over the next 20 years.The
report informs the Commission and the public about the utility’s plans,and is similar to an
accounting balance sheet;i.e.,it is a “freeze frame”look at the utility’s fluid,resource planning
process.See Order No.22299.The Commission requires the utility to:update the 1RP at least
biennially,allow the public to participate and comment during the IRP process,and implement
the IRP.See id.and Order No.25260.
The IRP should explain the utility’s present load/resource position,its expected
responses to possible future events,and the role of conservation therein.It should discuss “any
flexibilities and analyses considered during comprehensive resource planning,such as:(1)
On December 23.2013,Avista filed “Supplemental Updated Tables”to its IRP that added the 2027 83 megawatt
(“MW”)peaker that had been inadvertently omitted from IRP Tables 1.8.2.and 8.15 as originally tiled.
2 The Sierra Club and Montana Environmental Information Center filed joint comments.
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 1
examination of load forecast uncertainties;(2)effects of known or potential changes to existing
resources;(3)consideration of demand-and supply-side resource options;and (4)contingencies
for upgrading.optioning and acquiring resources at optimum times (considering cost,
availability,lead time,reliability,risk,etc.)as future events unfold.”See Order No.22299.The
IRP should separately address:
(1)“Existing resource stack”by identifying all existing power supply
resources;
(2)Load forecast”by discussing expected 20-year load growth scenarios for
retail markets and for the federal wholesale market including
“requirements”customers,firm sales,and economy (spot)sales.This
section should be a short synopsis of the utility’s present load condition,
expectations,and level of confidence;and
(3)“Additional resource menu”by describing the utility’s plan for meeting all
potential jurisdictional load over the 20-year planning period,with
references to expected costs,reliability,and risks inherent in the range of
credible future scenarios.
Id.
The IRP is not merely an academic or regulatory exercise but is intended to
demonstrate to the Commission and the public that the Company has considered,and prepared
for,a multitude of scenarios.The Commission expects each company submitting an IRP to
vigorously test the assumptions used in its plan to better ensure that the results of its IRP
accurately reflect changing markets and customer demand.
THE 2013 ELECTRIC IRP
The 2013 Electric IRP guides Avista’s resource strategy over the next two years and
directs resource procurements over the 20-year plan.It provides a snapshot of Avista’s resources
and loads and guides future resource acquisitions over a range of expected and possible future
conditions.Avista’s 2013 Electric IRP is about 210 pages long and is accompanied by 913 pages
of appendices.The 2013 Electric IRP includes an Executive Summary plus the following
sections:(1)Introduction and Stakeholder Involvement;(2)Loads &Resources;(3)Energy
Efficiency;(4)Policy Considerations;(5)Transmission &Distribution;(6)Generation Resource
Options;(7)Market Analysis;(8)Preferred Resource Strategy;and (9)Action Items.
Avista says its 2013 Preferred Resource Strategy (“PRS”)includes energy efficiency,
upgrades at existing generation and distribution facilities,demand response (“DR”)and new gas
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 2
fired generation.The PRS balances cost,reliability,rate volatility,and renewable resource
requirements.The Company says its management and Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”)
guide the development of the PRS and the IRP by providing significant input on modeling and
planning assumptions.TAC members include customers,Commission Staff,the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council,consumer advocates,academics,utility peers,government
agencies,and interested internal parties.
Avista says it uses a multiple-step approach to develop its PRS.The Company first
identifies and quantifies potential new generation resources to serve projected electricity demand
across the West.A Western Interconnect-wide study explains the impact of regional markets on
the Northwest electricity marketplace.The Company then maps its resources to the present
transmission grid configuration in a model simulating hourly operations for the Western
Interconnect from 2014 to 2033.The model adds cost-effective new resources and transmission
to meet projected loads.Monte Carlo-style analysis varies hydroelectric and wind generation,
loads,forced outages and natural gas price data over 500 iterations of potential future market
conditions.The simulation estimates Mid-Columbia electricity market prices by iteration,and
the results collectively form the IRP Expected Case.
Avista’s 2013 IRP forecasts electricity price for the Expected Case,including the
price range over the 500 Monte Carlo iterations.The Company forecasts the levelized average
Mid-Columbia market price to be $44.08 per megawatt hour (“MWh”)in nominal dollars over
the next 20 years.The Company observes that electricity and natural gas prices are highly
correlated because natural gas fuels marginal generation in the Northwest during most of the
year.The Company reports that nominal levelized Expected Case natural gas prices at Stanfield
trading hub,located in northeastern Oregon,and the forecast range from the 500 Monte Carlo
iterations performed for the case result in an average $5.40 per decatherm over the next 20 years.
Avista says the 2013 Electric IRP includes a 20-year Conservation Potential
Assessment.The study analyzed over 4,300 energy efficiency equipment and measure options
for residential,commercial,and industrial applications.Based on this data,Avista says its
historical energy efficiency efforts decrease its energy requirements by 125 average MW
(“aMW”),or about 10%.By 2033,energy efficiency reduces load by 164 aMW.
Avista says its management and the TAC guided the development of the 2013 PRS
after carefully considering the information gathered and analyzed in the IRP process.The
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 3
resulting 2013 PRS meets future load growth with efficiency upgrades at existing generation and
distribution facilities,conservation,wind,and natural gas-fired technologies.It also describes a
reasonable low-cost plan along the efficient frontier of potential resource portfolios accounting
for fuel supply risk and price risk.However,major changes from the 2011 PRS include reduced
contributions from conservation,wind,and natural gas-fired resources.And for the first time,
the Company’s PRS includes a modest contribution from DR.
Avista says it then values each new resource and energy efficiency option against the
Expected Case Mid-Columbia electricity market to identify its future value to the Company,as
well as its inherent risk measured by year-to-year portfolio cost volatility.These values,and
their associated capital and fixed operation and maintenance costs,are input into Avista’s PRS
Linear Programming Model (“PRiSM”).PRiSM then develops optimal mixes of new resources
along an efficient frontier.
Avista says its PRS provides a “least reasonable cost”portfolio that minimizes future
costs and risks given actual or expected environmental constraints.An efficient frontier helps
determine the tradeoffs between risk and cost.Avista likens the approach to finding an optimal
mix of risk and return in an investment portfolio.As expected returns increase,so do risks.
Reducing risk reduces overall returns.There is a trade-off between power supply costs and
power supply cost variability.Lower power cost variability comes from investments in more
expensive,but less risky,resources.The PRS selection is the location on the efficient frontier
where reduced risk justifies the increased cost.
Avista says the 2013 Electric IRP includes several scenarios that help identify tipping
points where the PRS could change under alternative conditions to the Expected Case.It
includes scenarios for load growth,capital costs,higher energy efficiency acquisitions,and
greenhouse gas policies.
The Company says its 2013 PRS significantly differs from the 2011 IRP resource
strategy.The Company says 2011 PRS resources included,on a nameplate capacity basis:120
MW of Northwest Wind by the end of 2012 and 2019-2020;83 MW of simple-cycle combustion
turbine (“SCCT”)by the end of 2018 and 2020,and 46 MW by 2029;4 MW of existing thermal
resource upgrades by the end of 2019;270 MW of combined-cycle combustion turbine
(“CCCT”)by the end of 2023 and 2026.Further,2011 PRS efficiency improvements included
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 4
28 MW of distribution efficiencies and 419 MW of energy efficiency from 2012-203 1 on a peak
reduction basis.In summary,the 2013 PRS compares to the 2011 PRS as follows:
Year 2013 PRS 2011 PRS
2018 83 MW SCCT
2019 83 MW SCCT 4 MW Thermal Upgrades
2019/2020 120 MW Northwest Wind
2020 83 MW SCCT
2021
2022
2023 83 MW SCCT 270 MW CCCT
2024
2025
2026 270 MW CCCT 270 MW CCCT
2027
2028 6 MW Thermal Upgrade
2029 46 MW SCCT
2030
2031
2032 50 MW SCCT
Distribution Efficiencies <1 MW peak reduction 28 MW peak reduction
Energy Efficiency 221 MW peak reduction 419 MW peak reduction
Demand Response 19 MW peak reduction -
Avista says its renewable and capacity needs have changed since the 2011 plan.For
example,the Company says it satisfied the 2012 Northwest Wind component of the 2011 PRS by
adding Palouse Wind to its resource mix in December 2012.Also,changes in Washington law
eliminated the need for a 20 19/2020 wind resource.Further,while the 2011 IRP forecast 1.6%
annual load growth,the 2013 IRP forecasts just over 1%growth.The Company says the lower
expected load growth delays the first natural-gas-fired resource need by one year and eliminates
the need for a CCCT in 2023.
Avista says that since 2007,its Expected Case has included forecasts of greenhouse
gas emissions costs.However,the Company now believes a national greenhouse gas cap-and-
trade system or tax will be unlikely given current legislative priorities and the President’s
Climate Action Plan.Thus,the Company’s 2013 Expected Case does not include a market or tax
solution to reduce emissions.Instead,because the states and the federal Environmental
Protection Agency are implementing regulatory models limiting emissions for new facilities,and
requiring current facilities to either implement best available control technologies or shut down,
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 5
the 2013 IRP forecasts significant numbers of plant retirements to meet these environmental
rules.Avista projects greenhouse gas emissions from its existing and new generation resources
will modestly increase,while Western Interconnect Greenhouse Gas emissions will fall from
historic levels as less-cost-effective coal and older natural gas-fired plants retire.Avista explains
that it does not follow this overall trajectory because the carbon intensity of its portfolio already
is relatively low.
Avista says its 2013 Action Plan updates progress on the 2011 Action items and
outlines activities Avista intends to perform for the 2015 IRP.Avista states the 2013 Action
Plan includes input from Commission Staff,the Company’s management team,and the TAC.
Action item categories include resource additions and analysis,demand-side management,
environmental policy,modeling and forecasting enhancements,and transmission planning.
THE COMMENTS
Commission Staff,ICL,SRA and SCMEIC filed written comments in the case,and
the Company filed a reply.The comments and reply are summarized below.
A.Commission Staff
Staff says the 2013 Electric IRP complies with Commission Order Nos.22299 and
25260.The Company amply provided for public participation and input through the TAC
meetings.And the IRP sufficiently informs parties about the Company’s present load position,
how the Company would respond to different future events,and the role of energy conservation
in the Company’s plans.Staff thus recommended the Commission accept the IRP as filed.
Staff also recommended the Company consider the following when preparing the
next IRP:
•The Company expects growth in net metering given state and federal
incentives.Staff requests that the Company apprise Staff of net metering
growth on the Company’s system and of the Company’s estimates of how
net metering will affect load;
•Given the large decrease in energy and peak load growth rates between the
2011 and 2013 IRPs,Staff recommends that the Company closely monitor
actual load growth in preparation for its 2015 IRP;
•The current IRP uses a 14%planning margin in addition to operating
reserves.And it considers how increasing the planning margin from 14%
to 20%would affect resource deficiencies (the first long-term year deficit
would occur in 2016).However,it does not discuss whether using a 14%
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 6
planning margin on top of operating reserves is too high given the region’s
surplus.As the Company’s IRP is used to set avoided cost rates in the
Surrogate Avoided Resource model,Staff recommends that the next IRP
further review the Company’s planning margin for winter peak capacity
planning;
The Company relies on the CPA conducted by EnerNoc to set the IRP’s
energy efficiency targets.While Staff believes it is appropriate to use a
CPA as a foundation for conservation,Staff requests that the Company
and EnerNoc further explain their rationale for arriving at Achievable
Potential savings.
See Staff Comments at 5,7-9.
B.ICL,SRA,and SCMEIC
ICL,SRA,and SCMEIC filed comments expressing concerns about the 2013 IRP.In
general,ICL says the Commission should accept the 2013 IRP but direct the Company to ensure
its future IRPs fully address risks associated with Colstrip and accurately calculate the costs of
alternative supplies.SCMEIC also says the IRP process should more fully address the Colstrip
risks.SRA,on the other hand,says the Commission should withhold acceptance of any part of
the 2013 IRP that envisions the indefinite operation of Colstrip until the Company details its
expected costs to comply with known and anticipated environmental regulations impacting
Colstrip.
In reply,the Company advocates that the Commission should accept the IRP because
it complies with Commission Order Nos.22299 and 25260.The Company also notes that while
many stakeholders participated in the IRP process—the Company invited more than 120
representatives from 45 organizations to the Technical Advisory Committee meetings—ICL,
SRA,and SCMEIC did not materially participate and expressed no concerns about the IRP until
filing their comments.3 That said,the Company points out that the IRP does consider the issues
raised by ICL,SRA,and SCMEIC.
The commenters’concerns and the Company’s reply are summarized below.
1.Colstrip Risks.SCMEIC,SRA,ICL say the IRP inadequately discloses and
analyzes risks of continuing to operate Colstrip.These include:
The Company says ICL and SRA did not attend any of the six TAC meetings,and that SCMIEC listened in to one
meeting via a conference bridge.Company Reply at 2.
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 7
a.Regional Haze.SCMEIC appealed the federal Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”)regional haze decision for Coistrip.In summary,EPA decided that no
upgrades need occur at Colstrip Units 3 and 4 while Units 1 and 2 must install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)pollution controls and reduce sulfur dioxide emissions to a level
that SCMEIC deems unacceptably high.The commenters criticize the IRP for saying nothing
about the appeal even though the appeal could cost Coistrip’s owners more than $100 million if
it succeeds.SCMEIC Comments at 4-5;ICL Comments at 2.
b.Green House Gas Regulations.SCMEIC says Colstrip will face unknown but
significant costs when the EPA finalizes its greenhouse gas regulations,and that Avista should
incorporate this risk by including a carbon price in future planning efforts.SCMEIC Comments
at 5-6;see also ICL Comments at 2 (criticizing the Company for not using a carbon adder in its
expected future case).
c.Permitting for Prevention of Significant Deterioration.The Clean Air Act
requires that pollution sources like Colstrip obtain a permit before making any changes that
could unnecessarily degrade air quality.SCMEIC says Colstrip was upgraded 12 times without
permits.SCMEIC thus sued to enforce the permitting requirement.The comments believe the
IRP should account for the risk that an enforcement order could require Colstrip to obtain
permits and install air pollution control equipment.SCMEIC Comments at 6-7;ICL Comments
at 2.
d.National Ambient Air Quality Standards.National Ambient Air Quality
Standards generally impose emissions standards for ozone,lead,particulate,sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide,and carbon monoxide.In 2010,EPA updated the sulfur dioxide standard.
SCMEIC says Colstrip’s emissions likely do not comply with the new standard,which means
that Coistrip now may have to meet lower emission limits than have already been imposed under
the EPA’s BART determination (discussed above).The commenters say the IRP should account
for these potential costs.SCMEIC Comments at 7-8.
e.Mercury and Air Toxics Rule.EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics (“MATS”)rule
establishes emission limits for mercury,non-mercury metals and acid gasses,and requires work
practices to minimize the creation of dioxin and furans.Sources with the greatest potential
compliance cost are those like Colstrip,which lack pollution equipment like baghouses and
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 8
modern sulfur dioxide controls.SCMEIC says it could cost $76 million to install this equipment
at Colstrip,and that the IRP should account for that risk.Id.at 8-9.
f Coal Combustion Waste.SCMEIC says Colstrip has hundreds of acres of wet
coal combustion waste surface impoundments that have leaked since the 1980s.SCMEIC says
EPA is considering coal combustion waste regulations that would require groundwater
monitoring,double lined landfills,closure of existing facilities,and possible conversion to dry
ash disposal facilities.SCMEIC says Colstrip’s total compliance costs will be unknown until the
regulations are finalized.But Puget Sound Energy,which is owns 1/3 of Colstrip,estimates it
will cost $42-125 million to comply with the regulations.In addition,the State of Montana has
entered a consent order with Colstrip’s owners to address certain coal ash disposal issues.
SCMEIC and others believe the consent order is inadequate and have filed an enforcement
action.If the action is successful,Colstrip could be required to upgrade its waste impoundments
and clean up contaminated groundwater.The commenters say the IRP should account for these
remediation risks.Id.at 9;see also ICL Comments at 1.
g.Coal Costs and the Rosebud Mine.SCMEIC notes that Colstrip obtains its coal
from the adjacent Rosebud mine,which has the highest production costs for coal in the area.
These costs are increasing,and the Company’s current contracts related to Rosebud expire in
2019.SCMEIC says the Company is negotiating to extend these fuel supply contracts with
Rosebud,and that the renegotiated contracts will likely reflect the increased costs of Rosebud
coal.Rosebud also is the subject of an enforcement action that could further increase Colstrip’s
cost for coal.The IRP should include the risk that Colstrip’s fuel costs will increase.See
SCMEIC Comments at 9-11.
In reply,the Company notes that the 2013 IRP evaluates upgrading or retiring
Colstrip under Expected and High Carbon pricing cases,and analyzes potential future liabilities
for thermal generation,and specifically Coistrip.The TRP discusses Colstrip’s environmental
risks,Avista’s climate change policy efforts,current and future environmental regulation,
Western Interconnect carbon emissions,carbon and other environmental impacts on thermal
generation and a Carbon Pricing case where the market is burdened by a carbon tax or similar
program.The Company says its analyses show Colstrip continues to provide value to customers.
Company Reply at 3.With regard to the ongoing SCMEIC lawsuit,the Company says the IRP is
not a proper place to address this legal matter,but that it has fully disclosed the litigation to the
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 9
U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.Further,the Company says it is too early to tell how
the case will resolve and what portfolio and financial impacts it might have.Id.at 4.
2.Colstrip Replacement.The commenters say the Company uses the wrong
measurement to analyze its costs of replacing the power from Colstrip.For example,SCMEIC
and SRA note that the Company analyzes Coistrip’s output based on nameplate capacity and
then calculates what would be needed to replace that capacity.But to accurately measure the
cost of Coistrip’s power versus the cost of a portfolio without Colstrip,the Company should
analyze Colstrip on a MWh basis,not a potential or nameplate basis.For example,Colstrip Unit
4 has experienced outages,but when Colstrip was operating reliably in 2011 the Company
showed it as providing 162 aMW or 1,416,000 MWhs.Despite this,the Company’s PRS says
Coistrip would need to be replaced by a CCCT gas plant with a 270 MW nameplate capacity that
provides 248 aMW.Further,Avista’s share of Colstrip’s nameplate capacity is only 222 MWs.
The IRP should realistically plan for future resource needs by analyzing Coistrip’s costs based on
actual MWhs and not inflated nameplate capacity.SCMEIC Comments at 4;SRA Comments at
3.
In reply,the Company points out that if it was short only on energy it might make
sense to consider Coistrip’s retirement on an energy basis;but it is not short of energy.The IRP
shows that the Company’s needs are driven exclusively by capacity,and replacing Colstrip based
on energy output would leave the Company short of those resources needed to maintain reliable
service and would increase the cost to serve customers.Company Reply at 6.
ICL says the Company’s analysis of the cost to replace Colstrip with a new 270 MW
CCCT gas plant also is flawed because it does not consider whether the Company might replace
Coistrip generation with existing,regionally available energy resources.ICL Comments at 3.
In reply,the Company says that relying on the wholesale marketplace for replacement
power should only occur if analysis shows the wholesale power market has significant surpluses.
But the Company and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council have determined that the
wholesale power market will be deficient well before any retirement of Colstrip.Thus,Colstrip
output in the IRP would not be replaced with market purchases.Company Reply at 5.
ICL also faults the Company’s analysis of replacing Colstrip with the CCCT plant
because the Company considers the cost to replace Colstrip but not the benefits of selling the
Company’s interest in Colstrip.ICL Comments at 3.
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 10
In reply,the Company says its Coistrip retirement scenario does not include any
offsets from selling the plant at cost beyond reclamation.Further,there is no reliable
information that would enable the Company to determine how selling its interest would impact
the economics of Coistrip retirement.The Company has thus followed the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission’s direction to focus on removing Coistrip from its portfolio.
The Company determined that removing Colstrip would cost customers tens of millions of
dollars per year in replacement portfolio power supply expenses.Company Reply at 5.
3.Natural Gas Alternatives.SRA observes that IRP does not forecast energy or
capacity deficits until around 2020,with the exception of sporadic winter peaking deficits that
the Company will meet through market purchases.But the Company still plans to add four
natural gas plants during the IRP horizon,though 2032.SRA says the Company is already very
long on gas,and that the IRP will increasingly expose ratepayers to gas price volatility and
uncertain supplies.Although Avista plans to start incorporating DR programs into its portfolio
to possibly replace natural gas peaking units,the 19 MW of DR identified in the PRS is too low.
The SRA says Avista’s plan for 492 MW of natural gas plants and upgrades but only 19 MW of
DR does not reflect a serious effort to reduce carbon emissions and that the Commission should
direct the Company to further analyze its DR potential.SRA Comments at 3-4.
In reply,the Company notes that the 2013 IRP includes 19 MW of DR,and that this
was the first time a DR program passed the least-cost test.Further,with some DR programs
passing the cost-effectiveness test,Avista includes an action item in the IRP to study this
resource further.Avista says that if this study supports maintaining or expanding the present DR
level,the Company will pursue DR and discuss it in the 2015 IRP.Company Reply at 7.
ICL notes that the 2013 IRP identifies the potential to increase hydroelectric
generation at Avista’s existing facilities as an alternative to gas plants.ICL thus recommended
the Company compare the costs and benefits of increasing hydro capacity against the preferred
strategy of building new gas-fired peaker plants.ICL Comments at 3.
In reply,the Company notes the IRP specifically evaluated hydro upgrade options
and found that the hydro upgrades were not least-cost and would not significantly reduce an
overall portfolio risk.Company Reply at 7.
4.Net Metering.SRA questions why the Company says it may need to adjust rate
structures if the 190 net metering customers identified in the IRP increases.SRA says that if the
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 11
Company believes the number of net metering customers is becoming a problem for its system,
then the Commission should ask the Company why and what the Company believes an
appropriate net metering penetration rate would be.SRA Comments at 5.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over Avista,an electric utility,and the issues in this
case under Title 61 of the Idaho Code and the Commission Rules of Procedure,IDAPA
3 1.01.01.000 et seq.The Commission has reviewed the filings in this case,including the 2013
Electric IRP,the comments,and the Company’s reply.Based on that review,the Commission
finds that the Company’s 2013 Electric IRP contains the required information and is in the
appropriate format as established in Commission Order Nos.22299 and 25260.Accordingly,we
find it reasonable to accept the Company’s 2013 Electric IRP.
We appreciate the written comments submitted in this case.We encourage the
commenters and other interested persons to participate in the IRP process and to provide further
input to the Company as it develops its 2015 IRP.We expect the Company to consider and
discuss at the TAC meetings the various concerns and suggestions that are and have been
offered.In particular,we expect the Company to monitor federal developments,such as the
promulgation of federal environmental regulations,and to account for their impact in its resource
planning.We also encourage the Company to continue exploring the use of DR as a resource,
and to be actively involved in and apprise us of matters relating to Coistrip.Lastly,given the
decrease in load growth forecasts—a phenomenon that other utilities have reported—we
encourage the Company to closely monitor actual load growth as it prepares its 2015 WP.
As always,our acceptance of the Company’s IRP should not be interpreted as an
endorsement of any particular element of the plan or of any proposed resource acquisition
contained in the plan.An IRP is a utility planning document that incorporates many assumptions
and projections at a specific point in time.By accepting the Company’s filing,we acknowledge
only the Company’s ongoing planning process,not the conclusions or results reached through
that process.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Company’s 2013 Electric IRP is accepted for
filing.
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997 12
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER.Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one (21)days of the service date of this Order.Within seven (7)
days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,any other person may cross-petition for
reconsideration.See Idaho Code §6 1-626.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of March 2014.
ATTEST:
Jean D Jewell
Commission Secretary
PAUL K.J[ILANDER.PRESII)ENT
JL6L L!’LLZ&_
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
O:AVU-E-I 3-07kk2
ACCEPTANCE OF FILING
ORDER NO.32997
MACK A.REDFORD,SIONER
1-,I-,