20110120Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER KEMPTON
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER REDFORD
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
FROM: KRISTINE SASSER
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: JANUARY 21, 2011
SUBJECT: BLUE RIBBON ENERGY'S LATE-FILED PETITION FOR
INTERVENTION IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT PETITION OF THE
ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO ADDRESS AVOIDED COST ISSUES AND
TO ADJUST THE PUBLISHED AVOIDED COST RATE ELIGIBILITY
CAP, CASE NO. GNR-E-10-04
BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2010, Idaho Power Company, Avista Corporation and PacifiCorp
dba Rocky Mountain Power (Utilities) fied a Joint Petition requesting that the Commission
initiate an investigation to address various avoided cost issues related to the Public Utilty
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURP A). The Petitioners requested that, while the
investigation was underway, the Commission "lower the published avoided cost rate eligibilty
cap from 10 aMW to 100 kW (to) be effective immediately. . . ." Petition at 7.
On December 3, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Joint Petition, Notice of
Modified Procedure, Notice of Intervention Deadline and Notice of Oral Argument. Order No.
3213 1. The Commission declined to immediately reduce the published avoided cost rate
eligibilty cap; set a December 17, 2010, deadline for intervention; set comment and reply
deadlines of December 22,2010, and January 19,2011, respectively; and set the matter for oral
argument on Januar 27,2011.
THE PETITION FOR LATE INTERVENTION
On Januar 19,2011, Blue Ribbon Energy, LLC (Blue Ribbon), fied an Emergency
Petition for Intervention pursuant to Rule 73, IPUC Rules of Procedure. Blue Ribbon asserts a
direct and substantial interest in the above referenced case as a result of "three permitted PURP A
. Wind Farms and a fourth wind farm application for a permit pending, all in process of
DECISION MEMORANDUM i
development in the State of Idaho. . . ." Petition at 4. Blue Ribbon states that its failure to meet
the intervention deadline was caused by its inexperience in matters before the Commission. Blue
Ribbon maintains that it was unaware that failure to fie for intervention would result in
exclusion from paricipation as a pary in the case. ¡d.
Blue Ribbon insists that its intervention wil not cause disruption in the case or
prejudice any existing pary. Blue Ribbon further states that its participation wil not unduly
broaden the existing issues in the case. Blue Ribbon agrees to be bound by any and all existing
Orders and Notices in the case.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not oppose Blue Ribbon's petition for intervention subject to the
restrictions enumerated in the Petition and Rule 73. In addition, none of the paricipating utilties
have fied opposition to Blue Ribbon's request for intervenor status.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to grant Blue Ribbon's late-fied petition for
intervention?
~~¿l.KristiASasser
Deputy Attorney General
~44tA
M:GNR-E-lO-04_ks
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
BLUE RIBBON ENERGY LLC
4515 South Ammon Road
Ammon, Idaho, 83406
208-524-2414 (Owner MJ Humphris)
801-523-2090 (Ower Arron F. Jepson)
RECElVED
tUIl JAN l 9 AM 10:35
10' L'O ,"., .,'" f'L Ari r"'UU!_ ',J
UTILITIES GOMM SSiON
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION-000000-
IN THE MATTER OF THE JOINT
PETITION OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY, AVISTA CORPORATION,
AND PACIFICORP DBA ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER, TO ADDRESS
AVOIDED COST ISSUES AND TO
ADJUST THE PUBLISHED AVOIDED
COST RATE ELIGIBILITY CAP
Case No. GNR-E-10-04
-~~000-
PETITION
Coms Now Blue Ribbn Enegy LLC (heafter calle "BRE" or "Blue Ribbon")
and respeetullysubmits, in copliance with Rule 62, this IPUC Rule 73 Petition for
Intervention in Case number 32131, regarding the above reference Joint Utilities'
Petition regarding avoided cost issues, and for the appointment or designation of Blue
Ribbon as a Rule 36 "Intervenor" in the above titled case. Blue Ribbon petitions for and
reuests an Order allowing its intervention, as specifcally allowed by Rule 73.. "unless
a diferent time is provided by Order."
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PEnnON
1 This Petition and the followin Points and Authorities are submited in
compliance wih Rule 53.04 (b), reuiring citations of all authorities relie upon by
the petitioner, and in compliance with Rules 41, 61, and 62, as required by Rule
72.
2 The Idaho Public Utilities Commission (hereaftr "IPUC"or "Commission") has
the authority to allow Intervention by Order (See IPUC Rules 36 and 73; all rules
referred to in this pleading refer to the IPUC Rules of Procure, unless
otherwise provided).
3 The time for Intervention prior to a Hearing may be lengthened or shortened by
Order of the Commission (se Rule 73).
4 Rule 73 clearly allows late intervention as follows:
Petitions not timely filed must state a substantial reason for delay. The
Commission may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene that are
not timely filed for failure to state good cause for untimely filing, to prevent
disruption, . prejudice to existing parties or undue broadening of the issues,
or for other reasons. Intervenors who do not file timely petitions are bound
by orders and notices earlier entered as a condition of granting the
untimely petition.
5 The wording, "Petitions not timely filed must state a substantial reason for delay," .
is unclear as to whether the "delay" referred to, is a "delay" in the case, caused
by the requested intervention, if granted, or alternately refers to a "delay" in filing
the Petition itself. Based upon the later wording in Rule 73 (see below), which
allows for late filing without stating "goo cause," it is resonable to conclude that
the "delay" referred to above, is a "delay" in the above reference pending ~.
Therefore, your Petitioner herein, Blue Ribbon, submits that it's intervention, if
granted, wil cause no "delay" in the pending case, of any kind, and makes no
request for a continuance of any hearing presently set, in the above title case, on
2
the IPUC's calendar. Furthermore, Blue Ribbon submits that the IPUC has broad
and unlimited discretion in granting Petitns for Intervntin, and that Rule 73
expressly allow late intervention without the requirement of stating a "substantial
reason" or "good cause" for a late filed Petition wherein it provides:
The Commission may deny or conditionally grant petitions to intervene
that are not timely filed for failure to state good cause for untimely filing. . .
(emphasis added)
6 Furthermore, Rule 13 mandates that the IPUC's Rules of Proceure - "wil"-
"be liberally construed to secure just, speedy and economical determination of all
issues presented to the Commission."
7 Rule 74 Require the Granting of Blue Ribbon's Petition: Rule 74 states in
clear language that the Commission or a presiding offcer thereof uwil grant
intervention" of a Petition to Intervene which shows a direc and substantial
interest in any part of the subject matter of a proceing, and which petion does
not unduly broaden the issues. This rule does not distinguish betwn timely
and late filed Petitions.
8 Nevertheless, Blue Ribbon states that it is inexperience in Commission matters
and procdures and filing deadline requirements, and did not clearly understand
the same, was unaware that there even existed IPUC Rules of Procure, and
that it was quite unaware of the necessit of filing a writen Petition for
Intervention in the above titled case, to avoid exclusion from partcipation in the
case, and that it only now, for the first time, has acquired the most basic
awareness of and familari with the aforesaid procures and rules. For this
3
ignorance Blue Ribbon apologizes and requests the Commission's liberal
constrction of its Rules and of this Petition, in Blue Ribbon's favor.
9 Blue Ribbon's Intervention wil NOT (a) cause any disruption in the case, (b)
prejudce any existing part, or (c) unduly broaden the existing issues of the
case.
10 Blue Ribbon agrees to be bound by any and all existing Orders and Notices in
the case, following intervention, excet as to the petition filing deadline.
11 Rule 41 Designation of Repreentaties: Pursuant to Rule 41, subseions 01
and 02, and Rule 43, subsection 04, Blue Ribbon discloses and states that it wil
be represented by either or both of its two owners/members (LLC's have
"members" not offcers - See Idaho Limited Liabilit Act, i.C. §53-608, et seq.),
MJ Humphries and Arron Jepson, whose addresses and phone numbers are
respectively:
MJ Humphries
Member of Blue Ribbon
4515 South Ammon Road
Ammon, Idaho 83406
208-524-2414
blueribbonenergytmgmail.com
Arron F. Jepson
Member of Blue Ribbon
10660 South 540 East
Sandy, Utah 84070
801-523-2090
ArronEsatmaol.com
12 Rule 71 Declaration of Diret and Substantial Interest: Blue Ribbon has
three permitted PURPA Wind Farms and a fourth wind farm application for a
permit pending, all in procss of development in the State of Idaho, and
therefore claims, pursuant to Rule 71, a direct and substantial interest in the
subject matter of the aforesaid and above titled proceding, regarding avoided
4
cost rates and size of PURPA Wind Farms. Blue Ribbon petitions and
respectfully requests an immediate IPUC ORDER allowing and appointing it as a
Rule 36 Intervenor in this proceding, Case Number 32131.
CONCLUSION: Having coplied wit the IPUC Rules of Procure for
Intervention, Blue Ribbon Energy LLC respectully requests that it Petition for
Intervention be granted forthwith, and that it be aUowed to partcipate in all
scheduled and upcoming hearings in this case.
Respectully submited this 18, day of January, 2011,
Blue Ribbon Energy LLC
By~Arõñmber
5