20010803Order No 28812.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
August 3, 2001
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE IDAHO POWER
COMPANY APPLICATION FOR A
REFUNDABLE EMERGENCY ENERGY
CHARGE FOR THE RECOVERY OF
EXTRAORDINARY POWER SUPPLY
EXPENSES.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. IPC-E-01-7

IN THE MATTER OF THE IDAHO POWER
COMPANY APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY
TO IMPLEMENT A POWER COST
ADJUSTMENT (PCA) RATE FOR ELECTRIC
SERVICE FROM MAY 1, 2001 THROUGH MAY
15, 2002.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. IPC-E-01-11

IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S INTERIM AND PROSPECTIVE
HEDGING, RESOURCE PLANNING,
TRANSACTION PRICING, AND IDACORP
ENERGY SOLUTIONS (IES) AGREEMENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. IPC-E-01-16

ORDER NO. 28812

This Order addresses two prehearing requests in the above referenced cases. The
Commission has issued two scheduling Orders regarding the further investigation of Idaho
Power Company’s 2000-2001 PCA case and the prospective IPC-E-01-16 case. These
scheduling Orders required the parties to file their comments in the form of “prefiled testimony
and exhibits.” Order Nos. 28731 at 4 and 28738 at 2 (emphasis added). Order No. 28738
required that Staff and intervenors submit their prefiled direct testimony in the three cases no
later than July 20, 2001.
The requests and their disposition are discussed below.
I. INTERVENORS’ REQUEST AND IDAHO POWER’S OBJECTION
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 read:

ORDER NO. 28812 1
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 requested that the Commission include the Declaration of Tony Jones,
which was previously submitted by the Intervenors in the Modified Procedure phase of 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.
On July 20, 2001, Idaho Power Company filed an Objection to the Intervenors’
request. The Company objected to inclusion of the Intervenors’ Comments in the record for
three reasons. First, the Company noted 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 argued 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 suggested that it would more appropriately
be filed in the IPC-E-01-7 and –11 cases.
Third, Idaho Power asserted that because Mr. Jones’ Declaration does not contain any
exhibits, workpapers or other documentation that support its cost and value quantification, Idaho
Power would be precluded from testing the validity of these “facts” if the Commission allowed
Intervenors’ Comments to be included in the record without the ability to cross-examine Mr.
Jones. Finally, the Company noted that the Intervenors will have full opportunity to file
testimony and exhibits addressing the costs and benefits of demand-side management (DSM) in
Case IPC-E-01-13 and the historic resource planning process in the IPC-E-01-7 and –11 cases.
However, 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. Intervenors did file an answer to Idaho
Power’s Objection.
Commission Findings
After reviewing the Intervenors’ request and Idaho Power’s Objection, the
Commission grants the Company’s Objection and denies the Intervenors’ request to accept their
comments in lieu of testimony. Once the Commission initiated its further investigation into the

ORDER NO. 28812 2
three cases, it convened a prehearing conference to determine the manner for processing the
cases. Order No. 28722. Following the prehearing conference, the Commission issued its
scheduling Orders setting the consolidated proceeding for hearing. IDAPA 31.01.01.247. Given
the Commission’s decision to conduct an evidentiary hearing, it ordered the parties to submit
evidence in the form of “prefiled testimony and exhibits.” Order Nos. 28731 at 4 and 28738 at 2.
As noted in the Intervenors’ footnote, they were aware of this requirement. In addition,
accepting the Intervenors’ comments and the previously filed Declaration of Mr. Jones to be
included in the evidentiary record would deny the Company its ability to cross-examine the
Intervenors. Consequently, we grant Idaho Power’s Objection and shall not include the
comments of the Intervenors in our hearing record. IDAPA 31.01.01.281 and .283. Although
we shall not include Intervenors’ comments as part of the hearing record, it shall be included as
part of the Commission Secretary’s official file in these cases. IDAPA 31.01.01.282.
II. 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 stated 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.
This is the second time Idaho Power has sought to delineate the documents contained in the
hearing record. No party submitted an answer to the Petition.
Commission Findings
The Commission finds that Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification of the record in
Case Nos. IPC-E-01-7 and –11 is premature. As noted in our scheduling Orders, the hearing for
these consolidated cases is set for August 28-30, 2001. The Commission’s Rule of Procedure
283 states that the hearing record in a proceeding consists of all “transcripts of hearings,
conferences, arguments and other proceedings on the record and all exhibits identified, offered,
admitted or denied admission at hearing or prehearing conference.” IDAPA 31.01.01.283. The
record for our decision is based upon the hearing record, the Commissioners’ record and items

ORDER NO. 28812 3

ORDER NO. 28812 4
officially noted. IDAPA 31.01.01.281. There will be ample opportunity at the Commission’s
evidentiary hearings for parties to request that the Commission take official notice of prior
Orders. IDAPA 31.01.01.262 and .263.
O R D E R
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Intervenors’ request to accept their
comments is denied and Idaho Power’s Objection to Intervenors’ comments is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power’s Petition for Clarification is
dismissed without prejudice.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho, this
day of August 2001.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER

Commissioner Hansen Dissents to Part I
and Concurs in Part II
DENNIS S. HANSEN, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:

Jean D. Jewell
Commission Secretary

O:IPCE017_11_16_ln