July 26_IPCoObj.doc

DECISION MEMORANDUM

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

FROM: LISA NORDSTROM

DATE: JULY 26, 2001

RE: IDAHO POWER COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO INTERVENORS’ COMMENTS AND PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD. CASE NOS. IPC-E-01-7; IPC-E-01-11; AND IPC-E-01-16.

On May 31, 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 Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and IPC-E-01-11, the Commission continues its investigation of the 2000-2001 PCA transactions. In Case No. IPC-E-01-16, the Commission will examine (on a perspective basis) Idaho Power’s trading practices, resource planning and its agreement with IES approved in Order No. 28596. The Commission’s first 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). In its amended scheduling Order, the Commission stood by Order No. 28731 and required “all comments to be filed as prefiled testimony and exhibits.” Order No. 28738 at 2 (emphasis added). Idaho Power filed two motions regarding the record in these proceedings – an objection to Intervenors’ Comments and a Petition for Clarification.

INTERVENORS’ COMMENTS
On July 17, 2001, a document entitled “Comments of Idaho Rivers United, Idaho Rural Council and Mary McGown” (Intervenors) was filed with the Commission in Case No. IPC-E-01-16. A footnote at the bottom of the first page reads:
We request that the Commission accept these brief comments despite the Commission’s prior direction to file comments “as prefiled testimony and exhibits.” Order No. 28738 at 2.

The Comments also request that the Commission include the Declaration of Tony Jones, which was previously submitted by the Intervenors in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and –11, as part of “the record of decision in this matter.” Presumably, “this matter” refers only to Case No. IPC-E-01-16 since it is the only case number appearing in the Comments’ caption.
IDAHO POWER’S OBJECTION TO INTERVENORS’ COMMENTS
On July 20, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed an Objection to the Intervenors’ Comments in Case No. IPC-E-01-16. The Company objects to inclusion of the Intervenors’ Comments in the record for three reasons. First, the Company notes that “the Commission explicitly ruled in Order No. 28738 that comments in a form other than prefiled testimony and exhibits would not be acceptable in this case.” Objection at 2. Second, the Company argues that the Declaration does not belong in the IPC-E-01-16 case (which is to address interim and prospective issues) because the majority of Mr. Jones’ Declaration consists of his opinions concerning the Company’s historic resource planning decisions. The Company suggests that it would more appropriately be filed in the IPC-E-01-7 and –11 cases. Third, Idaho Power asserts that because Mr. Jones’ Declaration does not contain any exhibits, work papers or other documentation that support its cost and value quantification, Idaho Power would be precluded from testing the validity of these facts by way of cross-examination of Mr. Jones if the Commission allowed Intervenors’ Comments to be included in the record.
Finally, the Company notes that the Intervenors will have full opportunity to file testimony and exhibits addressing the costs and benefits of DSM in Case IPC-E-01-13 and the historic resource planning process in the IPC-E-01-7 and –11 cases. However, it should be noted that the Intervenors did not submit comments or prefiled testimony in the IPC-E-01-7 and –11 cases prior to the July 20, 2001 filing deadline. As of the date of this Memorandum, neither the Intervenors nor other parties have filed responsive pleadings to the Company’s Objection.
IDAHO POWER’S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
On July 12, 2001, Idaho Power filed a Petition for Clarification in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and –11 “to ensure that all parties, including Idaho Power, are certain as to what will be considered as the record in this proceeding when the Commission conducts its deliberations concerning the $59,211,603 at issue…” Petition at 3. The Petition further states that Idaho Power believes the record will consist of Commission Orders 28722, 28731, and 28738; Idaho Power’s May 17 Motion for Modification and Request for Clarification of Order No. 28731; documents that the Commission takes official notice of; the evidentiary proceeding conducted on August 28-30, 2001; and any Orders issued after this date in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and –11.
As of the date of this Memorandum, none of the other parties have filed any responsive pleadings to the Company’s Motion.
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission grant Idaho Power’s request that Intervenors’ July 16, 2001 Comments and Declaration of Tony Jones be excluded from the record in this case?
2. Does the Commission grant Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification and/or its request that the record in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and –11 will consist of:
Commission Order No. 28722 (granted portion of PCA and set out issues for hearing);

Commission Order No. 28731 (first scheduling Order);

Idaho Power’s May 17 Motion for Modification and Request for Clarification of Order No. 28731;

Commission Order No. 28738 (amended scheduling Order);

Documents that the Commission takes official notice of;

The evidentiary proceeding conducted on August 28-30, 2001; and

Any orders issued after this date in Case Nos. IPC-E-01-07 and IPC-E-01-11.

3. If the Commission grants Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification, does it wish to include “prefiled testimony and exhibits” as part of the record to be considered during its deliberations?

Lisa Nordstrom

O:IdahoPower PCA_July 26_IPCoObj
DECISION MEMORANDUM 4