HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021002Decision Memo.docDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER HANSEN
JEAN JEWELL
RON LAW
LOU ANN WESTERFIELD
BILL EASTLAKE
DON HOWELL
RANDY LOBB
DAVE SCHUNKE
RICK STERLING
TONYA CLARK
BEV BARKER
GENE FADNESS
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2002
RE: CASE NOS. IPC-E-02-8; IPC-E-01-42 (Idaho Power; IPCo)
2002 INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN (IRP); GARNET REPORT
IPCO MOTION TO EXTEND FILING DEADLINE FOR GARNET REPORT
IPCO MOTION TO ESTABLISH DATE FOR IRP REPLY COMMENTS
On June 28, 2002, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power; Company) filed its year 2002 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (Commission). The Company’s filing is pursuant to a biennial requirement established in Commission Order No. 22299, Case No. U-1500-165. The IRP describes the Company’s loads and resources, provides an overview of technically available resource options including purchases of power from the wholesale market, the acquisition of additional generating resources and, to a lesser extent, pricing options and demand-side management programs.
On July 18, 2002, the Commission issued a Notice of Filing in Case No. IPC-E-02-8 and established an August 30, 2002 deadline for filing written comments.
Comments were filed by AARP, Windland, Inc., Citizens for Responsible Land Use, Commission Staff, Idaho Rivers United, Northwest Energy Coalition, the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, the Idaho Rural Council, Wind Works, Inc. and J. C. Hormel. Most parties found the Company’s Integrated Resource Plan to be deficient and recommended that it be rejected.
Motions to Initiate a Formal Proceeding were filed by AARP and the Clean Energy Advocates (Idaho Rivers United, Northwest Energy Coalition, LAW Fund and the Idaho Rural Council). The parties suggest that the Company’s IRP is so seriously flawed that it cannot serve as a planning tool for future resource acquisition. Because the present proceeding impacts future rate change requests and because it identifies the magnitude of loads to be met and the resources that will be chosen to serve them and because once those decisions are made, it may be too late to challenge the rate increases that follow, the parties suggest that the time for public participation and full Commission deliberation is now.
Idaho Power filed an Answer to the Motions and in separate Motion requested additional time (until October 23, 2002) to file Reply Comments. The requested reply date coincides with the Commission established filing date for the Garnet Report.
On September 27, 2002, Idaho Power made a letter filing in Case No. IPC-E-01-42 requesting that the scheduled October 23, 2002 file date for the Garnet Report be extended one week from October 23 to October 30, 2002. Idaho Power states that it is preparing both the Garnet report and its reply comments in the 2002 IRP case at this time. As might be expected, the Company states that the effort involved is substantial. In addition, counsel for Idaho Power relates a personal conflict, the rescheduling of which would involve significant expense. Idaho Power states that it has contacted counsel for Staff and all of the intervenors in Case No. IPC-E-02-8 and all counsel have indicated that their clients have no objection to the one-week delay requested.
COMMISSION DECISION:
Idaho Power requests the opportunity to file Reply Comments in its IRP case. The file date requested is the date that the Company’s Garnet Report is due. The Company by letter filing has also requested that its scheduled file date for the Garnet Report be extended from October 23 to October 30, 2002. The Company represents that it has contacted all parties and that no party objects to a one-week delay. Does the Commission agree to Idaho Power’s proposed scheduling for reply comments in the IRP case and for filing of the Garnet Report (October 30, 2002)?
Scott D. Woodbury
bls/M:IPCE0208_sw2
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2