20120105notice_of_oral_argument_order_no_32430.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 5,2012
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A )SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE FIRM )DOCKET NO.39151-2011
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT FOR THE )
SALE AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC )
ENERGY BETWEEN IDAHO POWER )IPUC CASE NOS.IPC-E-10-61
COMPANY AND GROUSE CREEK WIND )IPC-E-10-62
PARK,LLC (10-61)AND GROUSE CREEK )
WIND PARK II,LLC (10-62).)
________________________________________________________________________________
)
GROUSE CREEK WIND PARK,LLC,and )
GROUSE CREEK WIND PARK II,LLC,)
)
Petitioners/Appellants,)NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
)
v.)NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
)
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,)ORDER NO.32430
)
Respondent,Respondent on Appeal,)
)
and )
)
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,)
)
Respondent-Intervenor/Respondent )
on Appeal.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
)
On July 27,2011,the Commission issued a Final Order on Reconsideration affirming
its prior decision to not approve two Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs or Agreements)entered
into between the Grouse Creek projects and Idaho Power pursuant to the federal Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).Order No.32299.Based upon the express terms of
the Agreements,the Commission found that the PPAs were not effective prior to December 14,
2010 —the date on which the eligibility for PURPA published avoided cost rates in Idaho
changed from 10 average megawatts (aMW)to 100 kilowatts (kW)for wind and solar qualifying
facilities (QFs).Because each of the PPAs requested published avoided cost rates but the
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO.32430 1
projects were in excess of 100 kW,the Commission found that the published rates were no
longer available to the projects.
On September 7,2011,the Grouse Creek projects appealed the Commission’s Order
to the Idaho Supreme Court.On October 4,2011,the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC)issued an Order in a similarly situated case that the IPUC’s decision to not approve the
PPAs was inconsistent with PURPA and FERC’s regulations implementing PURPA.Notice of
Intent Not to Act and Declaratory Order,137 FERC ¶61,006 (Oct.4,2011).On November 3,
2011,in response to FERC’s Order,the Grouse Creek Projects,the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission and Idaho Power Company (collectively “the Parties”)filed a Stipulated Motion to
Suspend Appeal and Remand to the Administrative Agency with the Idaho Supreme Court.The
Parties maintained that there “is good cause for the Court to grant this Motion in order for the
Parties to consider a recent decision issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(“FERC”)regarding the subject matter of the appeal.”Motion at 2.Moreover,Idaho Code §61-
624 provides that the Commission “may at any time,upon notice to the public utility affected,
and after opportunity to be heard ...,rescind,alter or amend any order or decision made by it.”
The Court granted the Parties’Motion on November 22,2011.
As indicated in the Stipulated Motion,the Parties request that they be permitted an
opportunity to engage in settlement negotiations.Consistent with procedural Rule 352,Staff is
authorized to participate in the settlement negotiations and the settlement negotiations are
confidential unless all Parties agree to the contrary.Given the agreement among the Parties,we
find that settlement discussions are reasonable and in the public interest.The Commission
invites settlement of the entire appeal pursuant to Rule 353.The Parties have already convened
settlement discussions on December 9,2011,and December 22,2011.We encourage the Parties
to continue to actively participate in settlement negotiations.
The Commission also finds that it is appropriate to grant a further rehearing so that
the Commission may reconsider its Order No.32299 issued July 27,2011.Idaho Code §61-
624;Rule 332;Consumers’Company v.Idaho PUC,40 Idaho 772,236 P.732 (1925);Order No.
29491.Consequently,the Commission finds it is appropriate to issue this Scheduling Order.
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO.32430 2
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that,if the parties are unable to reach settlement in
this matter,the Commission adopts the following procedural schedule to determine
whether/when a “legally enforceable obligation”arose:
February 6,2012 Idaho Power and Staff initial legal briefing
February 27,2012 Grouse Creek reply briefing
March 7,2012 Oral argument
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Commission will convene a hearing for
oral argument in this case on WEDNESDAY,MARCH 7,2012,AT 9:30 A.M.IN THE
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM,472 WEST WASHINGTON STREET,BOISE,
IDAHO.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings will be conducted pursuant to the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure.IDAPA 31.01.01.000,et seq.
YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that all hearings and oral arguments in this matter
will be held in facilities meeting the accessibility requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).Persons needing the help of a sign language interpreter or other
assistance in order to participate in or to understand testimony and argument at a public hearing
may ask the Commission to provide a sign language interpreter or other assistance at the hearing.
The request for assistance must be received at least five (5)working days before the hearing by
contacting the Commission Secretary at:
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
P0 BOX 83720
BOISE,IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (FAX)
E-Mail:secretary(puc.idaho.gov
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties continue to engage in settlement
negotiations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that,absent settlement,the Parties comply with the
procedural schedule as set out in the body of this Order.
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO.32430 3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an oral argument be held on Wednesday,March 7,
2012,at 9:30 a.m.in the Commission Hearing Room.
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this D
day of January 2012.
ATTEST:
MACK A.REDFORD,X)MMISSIONER
1/
ARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
A A
Jean D.Jewéll
CommissionSecretary
0:IPC-E-I 0-6IJPC-E-I 0-62ks6
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT
ORDER NO.32430 4