20110421Objection to Request for Oral Argument.pdf

esIDA~PORQÐ
An IDACORP Company
DONOVANE. WALKER
Lead Counsel
dwalkerØlidahopower.com
April 21 ,2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jean D. Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Re: Case No. IPC-E-10-61
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY
FOR A DETERMINATION REGARDING A FIRM ENERGY SALES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN IDAHO POWER AND GROUSE CREEK WIND
PARK, LLC
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for filng please find an original and seven (7) copies of Idaho Power
Company's Objection to Request for Oral Argument in the above matter.
c;wcL
DEW:csb
Enclosures
1221 W. Idaho St. (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, 10 83707
DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
JASON B. WILLIAMS
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
dwalkercæidahopower.com
jwilliamscæidahopower.com
Attorneys for Idaho Power Company
Street Address for Express Mail:
1221 West Idaho Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
RECEIVED
201 i APR 2 I PM 12: 30
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MAnER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMINATION REGARDING A FIRM
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN IDAHO POWER AND
GROUSE CREEK WIND PARK, LLC
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMINATION REGARDING A FIRM
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN IDAHO POWER AND
GROUSE CREEK WIND PARK ", LLC
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-10-61
)
) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
) OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR
) ORAL ARGUMENT
)
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-10-62
)
) IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S
) OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR
) ORAL ARGUMENT
)
Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Powet'), in response to the Motion to Set Time
for Oral Argument filed on April 7, 2011, by Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLC, and Grouse
Creek Wind Park II, LLC (collectively "Grouse Creek"), hereby respectfully objects to
Grouse Creek's Motion. Oral argument is not necessary in these proceedings. Grouse
Creek did not request a hearing nor oral argument within the comment deadline. As
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT - 1
described below, Grouse Creek has not alleged a sufficient basis requiring oral
argument.
The Commission ordered that these matters be processed pursuant to Idaho
Public Utilties Commission ("Commission") Rules of Procedure 201 through 204, th.e
Commission's rules on Modified Procedure. Order No. 32191. Order No. 32191 set
forth March 24, 2011, as the deadline for comments and any request for a hearing and
March 31, 2011, as the deadline for Idaho Power to file reply comments. Comments
were filed by Commission Staff .and by Grouse Creek within the comment deadline.
Idaho Power filed Reply Comments by the reply comment deadline.
The Commission found preliminarily that the public interest may not require a
hearing to consider the issues presented in these matters and that the proceeding may
be processed under Modified Procedure; Le., by written submission rather than by
hearing. RP 201. Under Modified Procedure, "Persons desiring a hearing must
specifically request a hearing in their written protests or comments." RP 203. "If
protests, supports, comments or a reply are filed within the deadlines, the Commission
wil consider them and may set the matter for hearing or may decide the matter and
issue its order on the basis of the written positions before it." RP 204.
Grouse Creek submitted lengthy Comments in these proceedings. It did not,
however, request a hearing either in its Comments or subsequently. Instead Grouse
Creek, two weeks after the comment deadline, has requested oral argument. The basis
of its request for oral argument is the allegation that there are inconsistencies with
statements of fact made by Idaho Power in its Reply Comments and the Comments
submitted by Grouse Creek and suggests that, "Because the records in these cases are
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT - 2
lengthy and Idaho Power appears to interpret the evidence different than the Grouse
Creek QFs, the Grouse Creek QFs submit that it would be beneficial for the
Commission to hold oral argument in these cases."
Resolving disputed factual issues is a legitimate, proper, and necessary function
of the Commission that it is well equipped and authorized to do, even for cases
processed pursuant the Commission's rules on Modified Procedure. Oral argument is
not the proper vehicle for the submission of factual evidence, and is not necessary in
these matters. These cases are being processed under Modified Procedure, and the
comment deadline has passed with no requests for a hearing or oral argument. Grouse
Creek has made a lengthy submission on behalf of the projects, and Staff and the
Company have also filed comments. There is no need for oral argument, certainly not
solely to resolve disputed issues of fact in the written record. The Commission should
render its decision in these matters based upon the written record pursuant to its rules
on Modified Procedure.
DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 21st day of April 2011.
- a/Il
ONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT - 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 21st day of April 2011 I served a true and correct
copy of IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT upon the following named parties by the method indicated below, and
addressed to the following:
Commission Staff
Kristine Sasser
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
Grouse Creek Wind Park, LLCs
Brett Woodard
Wasatch Wind Intermountain, LLC
2700 Homestead Road, Suite 210
Park City, Utah 84098
Peter J. Richardson
Gregory M. Adams
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY, PLLC
515 North 2th Street
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, Idaho 83702
-- Hand Delivered
U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-- Email Kris.Sassercæpuc.idaho.gov
Hand Delivered
-- U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-- Email bwoodardcæwasatchwind.com
Hand Delivered
-- U.S. Mail
_ Overnight Mail
FAX
-- Email petercærichardsonandoleary.com
gregcærichardsonandoleary.com
~~ulC0 ..Donovan E. Walker
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT - 4