May 17_IPCoObjMotn.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
BILL EASTLAKE
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
GENE FADNESS
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
TONYA CLARK
TERRI CARLOCK
DAVE SCHUNKE
BEVERLY BARKER
WORKING FILE

FROM: LISA NORDSTROM

DATE: MAY 17, 2001

RE: IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION’S SCHEDULING ORDER IN THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PCA CASE. CASE NOS. IPC-E-01-7; IPC-E-01-11; AND IPC-E-01-16.

On May 14, 2001, the Commission issued a scheduling Order regarding the further investigation of certain issues identified in the Order that granted Idaho Power partial recovery of its PCA. In the scheduling Order No. 28731, the Commission required Idaho Power and the other parties “to submit prefiled testimony and exhibits regarding” the issues that warranted further investigation (emphasis added). In Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and IPC-E-01-11 the Commission continued its investigation of the 2000-2001 PCA transactions. In Case No. IPC-E-01-16, the Commission will examine (on a perspective basis) the trading practices of Idaho Power in addition to its agreement with IES approved in Order No. 28596. The Commission’s scheduling Order noted that the “parties shall file their comments in the form of prefiled testimony and exhibits to avoid redundant filings in the event that an evidentiary hearing is later required.” Order No. 28731 at 4 (emphasis added).
IDAHO POWER’S MOTION
On May 17, 2001, Idaho Power filed with the Commission and served upon other parties an “Objection, Motion for Modification and Request for Clarification of Order No. 28731” (hereinafter the “Motion”). In its Motion, the Company asserts that the procedural schedule laid out in the Commission’s Order is “different from that which the Company understood had been agreed to” by the parties at the prehearing conference held on May 10, 2001. Motion at 2. The Company insists that it “is unable to comply with the schedule as set forth on page 3 of the Commission’s Notice and Order No. 28731. . . .” Id.
Contrary to the Commission’s Order, it was the Company’s understanding that the parties had agreed (and the Commission had adopted) that “the Company would file comments [instead of prefiled testimony] in each of the two dockets.” Id. at 2 (emphasis added). The Company envisioned that its comments
would be supported by Commission orders and documents to ensure that the legal issues involved in the Company’s trading practices would be addressed by all of the parties and resolved before any evidentiary hearing was held concerning those trading practices. In this way the Company would be assured it was addressing in prefiled testimony, all of the issues that remained after the Commission had resolved the legal issues involving the Company’s trading practices.

Id.
The Company’s Motion requests that the Commission modify its Order No. 28731 as shown at pages 3 and 4 of the Motion. In essence, the Company proposes that the requirement to submit “prefiled testimony and exhibits” be replaced with the requirement that the parties merely file “comments.” The Company has not requested a change in the scheduling dates. The Company’s Motion is attached for your review.
Given the immediacy of the scheduling deadline of May 24, the Company requests that the Commission issue an Order addressing this matter on less than 14 days notice. The Company asserts that the parties in attendance at the prehearing conference have been served a copy of the Motion via facsimile.
As of the date of this Memorandum, none of the other parties have filed any responsive pleading to the Company’s Motion.

MOTION STANDARDS
The Commission’s Procedural Rule 256 does allow a party to seek procedural relief on less than 14 days’ notice. IDAPA 31.01.01.256. The Commission may act upon a procedural motion if the facts contained in the motion support a request to act on a shorter notice and all of the parties have received actual notice of the motion. Rule 256.02 and .03, IDAPA 31.01.01.256.02 and .03. In a motion asking for expedited procedural relief, the Commission may act on such motion without waiting for a response of other parties. Rule 256.03.
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission want the parties to file their arguments as prefiled testimony or informal comments?
2. If the Commission desires to have the filings in the form of prefiled testimony, is it necessary to adjust the schedule?
3. If the Commission chooses to adjust the schedule, does it want to schedule another prehearing conference so all the parties can be present?

Lisa Nordstrom

bls/M:ipce017_ipce0111_ipce0116_dh_ln

DECISION MEMORANDUM 3