20110120PAC Reply Comments.pdf

R r: III
Ken Kaufan
Lovinger Kaufan. LLP
825 NE Multnomah. Suite 925
Portland. Oregon 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
kaufan~lklaw.com
"'!"ll JHl 19 nv t._ 23lUi! Í'U~ r n '1' .
Danel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street. Suite 2300
Salt Lake City. Uta 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
danel.solander~pacificorp.com
Attorneys for Rocky Mountan Power
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
IN TH MATTER OF THE JOINT )
PETITION OF IDAHO POWER ) Case No. GNR-E-10-04
COMPANY. AVISTA CORPORATION. )
AN PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY ) REPL Y COMMNTS OF
MOUNTAIN POWER TO ADDRESS ~ ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER
AVOIDED COST ISSUES AN TO ADJUST )
THE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE )ELIGIBILITY )
)
Comes now. PacifiCorp d//a Rocky Mountain Power ("Rocky Mountain
Power") and pursuant to that Notice of Scheduling Order No. 32131 issued on December
3.2010. by the Idaho Public Utilties Commssion (the "Commission") hereby provides
its Reply Comments in support of reducing the eligibilty cap for published avoided cost
rates.
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER
INTRODUCTION
On December 3, 2010, the Commission issued Order No. 32131 in ths
proceeding, which directed Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation, and Rocky
Mountain Power ("the Utilties") and interveners to address thee issuesl concerning the
Utilties' Joint Petition to Address Avoided Cost Issues and Joint Motion to Adjust the
Published Avoided Cost Rate Eligibilty Cap ("Joint Petition"). Based upon the
responses of paries and intervenors, the Commission wil establish a record from which
to make a decision regarding the Joint Petition's request to lower the published avoided
cost rate eligibilty cap. Comments were submitted December 22,2010; reply comments
are due Januar 19, 2011; and oral arguent is scheduled for Janua 27, 2011.
Additionally, in Order No. 32131, the Commission established that its decision regardig
an adjustment to the published avoided cost eligibilty cap would be effective as of
December 14,2010.
REPLY COMMENTS
A, Reducing the Eligibilty Cap for published avoided cost prices would
not violate PUR A.
The Nortwest and Intermountan Power Producers Coalition ("NIPPC') assert
that reducing the eligibilty cap would violate PURA.2 Its argument appears to be that
1 Those issues are: (1) the advisabilty of reducing the published avoided cost eligibilty cap; (2) if the
eligibilty cap is reduced, the appropriateness of exempting non-wind QF projects from the reduced
eligibilty cap; and (3) the consequences of dividing larger wind projects into 10 aMW projects to utilze
the published rate. Order No. 3213 1 at 5.
2 Comments in Opposition by the Northwest and Intermountain Power Producers Coalition and Alternative
Requestfor an Evidentiar Hearing at 6, IPUC Case No. GNR-E-IO-04 (December 22, 2010) ("NIPPC
Comments").
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 2
the Commission recognized, in the proceeding wherein it adopted a 10 aMW eligibilty
cap, that such a cap was necessar to achieve PURA's mandate that utilties purchase
electricity from "nontraditional facilties...3 While it is true that one objective ofPURPA
is to promote the development of non-utilty owned renewable generation, PURP A
mandates that ratepayers are indifferent to the avoided cost prices and are not requied to
pay more than the utilty's avoided cost or the costs the utility would have incured to
purchase energy and capacity but for the QF purchase.4 If a 10 aMW eligibilty cap
causes ratepayers to pay more than avoided cost for electicity purchaed from QFs, then
",
maintainng the cap may violate PURP A.
Commission Sta correctly noted in its Comments that PURP A does not require
states to offer published rate rates for purchases from QFs with a design capacity greater
th 100 kW.5 The Commission's implementation ofa 10 aM eligibilty thshold was
a discretionar act that may be modified upon proper notice.6 Therefore, if the
Commission determines that the 10 aMW eligibilty theshold no longer serves its policy
objectives or does not maintan the ratepayer neutrality mandate, changing it does not
violate PURP A.
III III
3 Id.
4 PURPA § 210, 16 U.S.C. § 824a-3(b) (2010).
s Comments of the Commission Staffat 3, Case No. GNR-E-lO-04 (Dec. 22, 2010) ("Staff Comments");
see also 18 C.F.R. § 292.304(c)(I).
6 Idaho Code § 61-624 (2010) ("The commission may at any time, upon notice to the public utilty affected,
and after opportnity to be hear as provided in the case of complaits, rescind, alter or amend any order or
decision made by it. Any order rescinding, altering or amending a prior order or decision shall, when
served upon the public utilty affected, have the same effect as is herein provided for original orders or
decisions.")
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 3
B. The Commission's Procedural Schedule DOES NOT violate the Filed
Rate Doctrine or the Prohibition Against Retroactive Ratemaking,
The filed rate doctrine holds that a utilty may charge only the approved rates and
charges it has on fie with its regulatory body. NIPPC asserts, in its comments, that the
fied rate doctrine prohibits the Commission from changing the eligibilty cap effective
December 14,2010, and prohibits the Utilties from refusing to accept an offer from a QF
over 100 kW to sell it power at the published rates.7 Assumng, arguendo, that the 10
aMW eligibilty theshold is a "rate" for puroses of this doctrne, Rocky Mountai
Power disputes NIPPC's assertions, for the reasons provided below.
Ths Commission aleady has recognized that the fied rate doctre is not without
exception.8 One widely recognized exception to the filed rate doctrne is that it does not
apply to cases in which the utilty counterpar has adequate notice that resolution of
some specific issue may cause a later adjustment to the rate being collected at the time of
service.
9 The reasons why the fied rate doctrine (and the rule against retroactivity) do
not apply where the Commission has given notice of a possible rate chage were
explaied by the U.S. District Cour for Arzona:
The purose of the rule against retroactivity, and the closely related filed
rate doctrine, is to ensure predictabilty. Therefore, the rule does not
7 NIPCC Comments, p. 9.
8 IPUC Order No. 23908, 1991 Ida. PUC LEXIS 158, *20-21 (1991).
9 Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. FERC, 965 F.2d 1066, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ("The fied rate doctrne
simply does not extend to cases in which buyers are on adequate notice that resolution of some specific
issue may cause a later adjustment to the rate being collected at the time of service. "); see also OXY USA,
Inc. v. FERC, 64 F.3d 679, 699 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (liThe goals of equity and predictbilty are not
undermined when the Commission wars all paries involved that a change in rates is only tentative and
might be disallowed. "); Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. FERC, 61 F.3d 1479 (lOth Cir. 1995) (echoing
Natural Gas Clearinghouse); Qwest Corp. v. Koppendrayer, 436 F.3d 859, 864 (8th Cir. 2006); Tucson
Elec. Power Co. v. El Paso Elec. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82499, *25.
REPLY COMMNTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER 4
apply in situations where there is adequate notice that resolution of some
specifc issue may cause a later adjustment to the rate being collected at
the time of service. The goals of equity and predictabilty are not
undermined when the Commission wars all paries involved tht a
change in rates is only tentative and might be disallowed. Indeed,
providing notice tus retroactive ratemakg into a functionally
prospective process by informng the relevant individuas that the rates
being promulgated are provisional only and are subject to later revision.
Tucson Elec. Power Co. v. El Paso Elec. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82499, *24-25
(emphasis added; internal quotations and citations omitted). As explained, above, when a
state utilty commssion gives notice that a rate may be subject to future change for a
specified reason, that warng becomes, effectively, par of the existing rate such that any
later revision is prospective, rather than retroactive. The Commission presumably was
aware of this legal principle when it issued Order No. 3213 1.
Since the Commssion acted properly when it declared that any change to the
eligibilty cap would be effective December 14, 2010, it necessarly follows tht the
Utilities are not obligated to offer published rates (except provisionally) to QFs above
100 kW until the Commssion rules on the Joint Petition's motion to reduce the eligibilty
cap. To find otherwse would render meaningless the Commission's order of a December
14, 2010 effective date. Until fuer notice from the Commssion, Rocky Mounta
Power intends to give effect to Order No. 32131 by adminstering QF contrct
applications from QFs greater than 100 kW as follows: If Rocky Mountain Power and
the QF (under 10 aMW) both executed a power purchase agreement ("PPA") or reached
agreement on all fmal terms of a PPA prior to December 14, 2010, Rocky Mounta
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 5
Power will pay Seller the published avoided cost prices.1O If Rocky Mounta Power and
the QF did not execute the final PPA or reach agreement on final terms of a PP A prior to
December 14, 2010, Rocky Mountain Power will still agree to execute a PPA but,
consistent with Order No. 3213 1, it wil either: (1) make the contrct price provisional, to
be determned finally in accordance with the Commssion's final determination in GNR-
E- 1 0-04; or (2) pay avoided cost prices prepared for the QF based on the project specific
characteristics using the Commission approved IRP-methodology. For any QF contract
with provisional pricing, Rocky Mountain Power will note in its application to the
Commission the date that the paries reached agreement on all terms of the final power
purchase agreement and ask that the Commission determine whether the QF should be
eligible for published rate prices. II
10 An example is the Cedar Creek Wind LLC QF development consisting of five separate and distict
facilties each sized 10 aMW or less (Coyote Hil (27.6 MW), Steep Ridge (25.2 MW), Ratlesnake Canyon
(27.6 MW), Five Pine (25.2 MW) and Nort Point (27.6 MW)). Rocky Mountain Power and Cedar Creek
finished negotiations of all terms prior to December 14, 2010. Subject to Commission approval, Rocky
Mountain Power therefore ageed to pay the published avoided cost rates in the five power purchase
agreements and fied them with the Commission on Januar 10, 2011. Direct Testimony of Bruce
Griswold ("Griswold Direct Testimony.") at 4-5.
ii The Commission's Order, and Rocky Mountain Power's resulting treatment of QFs described above, is
consistent with the approach the California Public Utilties Commission (CPUC) used when it grted a
joint request to immediately reduce the term of stadard offer QF contracts from 30 year down to 6 year.
see Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (U 902-E) for an Ex Parte Order Approving
Modifcations to Uniform Standard O.fr NO.1 and Standard Offer No.3, 68 CPUC 2d 434, 1996 CaL.
PUC LEXIS 1016, *10-11 ("SOL Order"). In that proceeding, the CPUC made the change in a final order
dated October 9,1996, but ordered the change to be effective as of April 16, 1996-six months prior to its
final order. The CPUC expressly rejected the assertion that utilties were required to continue executing
standard offer contracts with 30-year terms until the date of the CPUC's final order, stating that the QF's
reliance on the 30-year term after receiving constrctive notice of change in the form of the utilties'
petition was commercially unreasonable. Id. at *46. It acknowledged that regulatoiy uncertainty is
"unpleasant", but a fact of life (Id. at *37), and ordered that the utilties provide eveiy person seeking a
copy of a standard offer contrct be given a copy of its decision, too, so that QFs, hencefort, would have
actual notice that QF rates are subject to change at any time. Id. at *53.
REPLY COMMNTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 6
C. Conditions warrant reducing the 10 aMW Cap with no
grandfathering.
If the Commission decides to modify the 10 aMW cap with an effective date of
December 14, 2010 (or any other effective date), there likely will be disputes regarding
how to determe whether a QF that does not have an executed PPA on that date should
receive grandfathered tratment. When the Commssion last ordered a temporar
reduction in the 10 aMW theshold for on-system (i.e., directly connected to the utilty)
wind QFs, it adopted the followig criteria for grandfathering projects that were in
progress at the time of the Commission's notice:
For puroses of determining eligibilty we find it reasonable to use the
date of the Commission's Notice in this case, i.e., July 1,2005. For those
QF projects in the negotiation queue on that date, the criteria that we will
look at to determine project eligibilty are: (l) submitt of a signed power
purchase agreement to the utilty, or (2) submittal to the utilty of a
completed Application for Interconnection Study and payment of fee. In
addition to a finding of existence of one or both of the preceding theshold
criteria, the QF must also be able to demonstrate other indicia of
substatial progress and project matuity, e.g, (1) a wid stdy
demonstrating a viable site for the project, (2) a signed contract for wind
tubines, (3) aranged financing for the project, and/or (4) related progress
on the facilty permtting and licensing path.
Order No. 29839 at 10. The Commission did not explai why it felt that grandfatherig
was waranted in 2005. The Commssion has discretion to determe grandfathering
criteria, or to deny grandfathering, depending upon the circumstaces at the time.
12
12 See SOL Order at *45-46. The CPUC, in deciding whether to gradfather any QFs that did not have fully
executed agreements prior to the chosen date, considered the following factors:
a. Amount of nameplate capacity at issue
b. Likelihood that all QF offers would develop and the effect on utility reserve margins
c. Market rates for natural gas, and
d. Consequences to ratepayer of paying too great a price
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 7
Compared to circumstances in 2005, the theat to ratepayers if the Commission
does not reduce the 10 aMW limit is greater. Idaho Power predicts that wind generation
on its system may exceed 1 100 MW - more than its miimum loads - in the near futue if
no action is taen. Order No. 32131 at 2. Rocky Mountain Power states that developers
comprising over 358 MW of wind capacity have contacted Rocky Mountain Power
requestng an Idaho power purchase agreement. Id. In 2005, Idaho Power had only
267.5 MW of contracted QF wid (Order No. 29839 at 2); Rocky Mountain Power had
only 20 MW. Order No. 32131 at 2. Since 2005, the number of QF wind projects being
developed in Idaho has expanded greatly. As of ths filing, Rocky Mountan Power has
received Commssion approval on 43.6 MW of published rate wind QF projects and has
another 133.2 MW of published rate wind QF projects pending before the Commssion
for a decision.13 These projects, under the development of more sophisticated developers
with additional techncal and financial resoures available, have a higher likelihood of
being completed. Thus, their cumulative affect on system power costs and system
reliabilties has multiplied.
Given these trends above, Rocky Mountan Power urges the Commssion not to
require grandfathered treatment of any QFS.I4 Both Idao Power and Rocky Mounta
Power have developers seeking to sell output from complexes of wid QFs comprising
In light of the above factors, the CPUC allowed limited grndfathering but noted that its decision might
have been different had the factual circumstances varied. /d.
13 Griswold Direct Testimony at 8.
dl4 In the SOL Order, the CPUC held that a QF and the utilty must have a meeting of the minds on the terms
and conditions of a power purchase agreement, and the QF must have mailed or personally delivered
documentation of that agreement to the utilty prior to the date the utilty petitioned the CPUC, in order to
receive gradfathered treatment. SOL Order at *49-50.
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 8
hundreds of megawatts at the published prices. For the reasons discussed above, those
developers have no right to rely on receiving published prices, and the cost to ratepayers
of the Commssion exercising discretion to grandfather such large projects is signficant.
In the absence of grandfathering criteria from the Commission, developers still will be
entitled to pre-December 14,2010 status if they can prove that they established a legally
enforceable obligation prior to that date.
D. Hearing is not required to grant the Joint Petition,
In its comments, NIPPC asserts that it is improper for the Commission to modify
the 10 aMW thshold without an evidentiar hearng. NIPPC Comments at 13. Such an
assertion misconstres the purose of the Utilties' Joint Petition. The immediate
purose of modifying the 10 aMW theshold is to pause the status quo while the
Commission taes the time it needs to investigate the issues raised by the pares.
Without such a pause, the risk that the utilties will be inundated with large blocks of new
wind capacity at prices disadvantageous to the ratepayer is self-evident. In 2005,
Commission Sta Engineer Rick Sterling offered the following testimony regardig how
the Commission should determine whether a temporar change in published rate
eligibilty should be granted:
Question: What stadad do you believe should be applied by the
Commission in determg whether a tempora change in published rate
eligibilty should be granted?
Answer: At ths initial stage of the proceeding, I believe the Commission
only needs to decide. whether to temporaly limit the obligation to
purhase the output from intermttent generatig resoures such as wind.
Consequently, I believe that the proper standard is to determine whether
there mi be a problem developing and whether that problem is serious
enough to justif immediately limiting published rate availabilty. I do not
REPLY COMMNTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 9
believe that Idaho Power at this stage needs to make a convincing case
that a problem has already occurred or that harm has already been done
to Idaho Power or its ratepayers. The purse of restricting published
rates is to pause long enough to gather information and to assess whether
Idaho is headed in the right direction before proceeding fuer on the
curent path. If the Commission agrees, I would not view that as a
judgment on the price, the quantity, or the prudence of acquiring wid
generation, but instead as a "timeout" while we evaluate our position and
determine a futue direction that is in the best interests of Idaho's
ratepayers.
Testimony of Rick Sterling, 5 (July 15,2005) IPC-E-05-22 (itaics added). Mr. Sterling's
testimony in IPC-E-05-22 rings tre in this proceeding as well. If the Commission
believes there is ample evidence to suggest tht a timeout is necessar to protect the
ratepayers, it may call a timeout without resort to an evidentiar hearing.
IS
E. If the Commission modifies the 10 aMW threshold for wind only, it
should apply to off-system wind projects,
For the reasons stated in the Joint Petition and in its Comments, Rocky Mountain
Power favors reducing the eligibilty cap for all resource tyes of QF generation.I6 In the
alternative, Rocky Mountain Power asks that the Commssion modify the eligibilty cap
for on- and off-system wind projectsP Rocky Mountain Power is negotiating with
several QF wid projects located outside of its servce terrtory that plan to wheel their
IS See so I Order at 44-45 (stating that the CPUC has suspended the availabilty of standard offer contrcts
without evidentiar heaings); see also In the matter of Public Ulil. Comm. of Oregon Investigation into
Interconnection of PURP A Qualifing Facilties with Nameplate Capacity Larger than 20 Megawatts to a
Public Utilty's Transmission or Distribution System, OPUC Order No. 10-132,5.2010 Ore. PUC LEXIS
U8, *12 (concluding that the OPUC implementation of PURA is not subject to filing and suspension
requirements applicable to retail electric tariffs, and that the Oregon PUC may determine the
reasonableness ofQF rates without a hearing).
16 See Griswold Direct Testimony at 3-4.
17 In IPC-E-05-22. the Commission's temporar reduction of the eligibilty cap did not apply to off-system
wind project delivered via a firm schedule.
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAI POWER 10
output to Rocky Mountan Power and be paid the published rate prices. is Although off-
system wind projects deliver firm scheduled power, they still present a risk of inflating
the Utilties' average system costs and aggravating minum load conditions on
PacifiCorp's system. Therefore, the Commssion's order should make no distiction
between wid projects that are off-system and delivered via a firm schedule and wid
projects that are interconnected directly to the utilty buying their output. 19
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set fort above, Rocky Mounta Power requests that the
Commission grant the request in the Joint Petition to temporarly reduce the eligibilty
theshold for published prices from 10 aMW down to 100 kW.
Respectfly submitted this 19t day of Januar 2011.
Loviger Kaufan LLP KORMNIK HALAM & SNEED, LLP
lsi John R. Kormank
John R. Korman, ISB #5850
KORMNIK HALLAM & SNEED LLP
1099 S. Wells Street, Ste. 120
Meridian, ID 83642
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
jrk~khidaholaw.com
K!enneth Ka an, OSB #982672
825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 925
Portland, Oregon 97232
[phone]
kaufan~1kaw.com
Danel Solander, Utah Bar 11467
Attorneys for PacifCorp
18 Griswold Direct Testimony at 6.
19 If the Commission excluded off-system wind QFs from a reduction of the 10 aMW eligibilty threshold,
it would create a perverse incentive for wind QFs to wheel their output to an Idaho utility in order to
circumvent the cap reduction.
REPLY COMMENTS OF
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on the 19th day of Januar, 201 i, I served a tre and
correct copy of the foregoing ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S REPLY COMMENTS in
Case No. GNR-E-lO-04 on the following named personslentities by Hand Delivery
(Commission Secretar only) and electronic mail:
Jean Jewell, Commission Secretar Robert D. Kah, Executive Director
Idaho Public Utilties Commission Nortwest and Intermountan Power
472 West Washigton Street Producers Coalition
Boise, ID 83702-5918 1 1 17 Minor A venue, Suite 300
jean.jeweiicæpuc.daho.gov Seattle, WA 98101
(Hand Delivered)rkah~Itc.org
Danel Solander Michael G. Andrea
Rocky Mounta Power A vista Corporation
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300 1411 East Mission Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 1 Spokane, W i\ 99202
dael.solander~acificorp.com michael.andreacæavistacorp.com
Ronald 1. Wiliams Dean J. Miler
Wiliams Bradbur PC McDevitt & Miller LLP
i 0 i 5 West Hays Street PO Box 2564
Boise, ID 83702 Boise,ID 83701
roncæwiliambradbur.com joe~cdevitt-miiier.com
Dana Zentz, Vice President Don Stuevant, Energy Director
Sumt Power Group, Inc J. R. Simplot Company
2006 East Westinster PO Box 27
Spokane, WA 99223 Boise,ID 83707-0027
dzntz~sumtpower.com don.stuevantcæsimplot.com
Robert A. Paul Scott Montgomery, President
Grad View Solar II Cedar Creek Wind LLC
15690 Vista Circle 668 Rockwood Drive
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92241 Nort Salt Lake, UT 84054
robertpaul08cægmail.com scottcæwesternenergy.us
R. Greg Ferney James Carkulis, Managing Member
Mimura Law Offces PLLC Exergy Development Group ofIdaho LLC
2176 Eat Franin Road, Suite 120 802 West Banock Street, Suite 1200
Meridian,lD 83642 Boise,lD 83702
greg(turaw.com j carkuiscæexergydevelopment. com
Thomas H. Nelson, Attorney
POBox 1211
Welches, OR 97067-1211
nelsonúùthelson.com
Bil Piske, Manager Wade Thomas, General Counsel
Interconnect Solar Development LLC Dynamis Energy LLC
1303 East Carer 776 West Riverside Drive, Suite 15
Boise,ID 83706 Eagle,ID 83616
bilpiske(ßcableone.net wthomas(ßdynamisenergy.com
Brian Olmstead, General Manager Paul Marin
Twin Falls Canal Company Intermountain Wind LLC
PO Box 326 POBox 353
Twin Falls, ID 83303 Boulder, CO
olmstead(ßtfcanal.com paulmarin(ßintermountainwind.com
JohnR. Lowe Ted Diehl, General Manager
Consultant to Renewable Energy Coalition Nort Side Canal Company
12050 SW Tremont Street 921 North Lincoln Street
Portland, OR 97225 Jerome, ID 83338
jravensanarcosCWahoo.com nscanal(ßcableone.net
Bil Brown, Chair Shelley M. Davis
Board of Commssioners Barker Rosholt & Simpson LLP
of Adams County, ID 1010 West Jefferson Street (83702)
PO Box 48 PO Box 2139
Council,ID 83612 Boise,ID 83701
bdbrown~frontiernet.net smd~idahowaters.com
Donovan E. Waler Glenn Ikemoto
Lisa D. Nordstrom Margaret Rueger
Idaho Power Company Idaho Windfars LLC
PO Box 70 672 Blair Avenue
Boise, ID 83707-0070 Piedmont, CA 94611
dwalker~idahopower.com glenn(ßenvisionwind,com
lnordstrom(ßidahopower.com margaret(ßenvisionwind.com
Donald 1. Howell II Peter J. Richardson
Krstie A. Sasser Gregory M. Adams
Deputy Attorneys General Richardson & O'Lear PLLC
Idaho Public Utilties Commssion POBox 7218
472 West Washigton Street Boise,lD 83702
Boise,ID 83702 peter~richadsonandoleai.com
don.howell~ipuc.daho.gov greg~ichardsonandoleai.comkrs.sasser~uc.idao.gov
Ted Sorenson PE
Blich Power Company
5203 South 11 th East
Idaho Falls, ID 83404
ted1atsorenson.net
l'
DATED ths l! day of Janua, 2011.
KORMNIK HALA & SNED LLP
lsI John R. Korman
John R. Korm, of the Fir, ISB #5850