20110901order_no_32350.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
September 1,201 1
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A )CASE NO.IPC-E-ll-l0
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE )
FIRM ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT )
WITH INTERCONNECT SOLAR )ORDER NO.32350
DEVELOPMENT,LLC FOR THE SALE )
AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY )
On June 17,2011,Idaho Power Company filed an Application with the Commission
requesting acceptance or rejection of a 25-year Firm Energy Sales Agreement (Agreement)
between Idaho Power and Interconnect Solar Development LLC (Interconnect Solar;Project).
On July 8,2011,the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified
Procedure.Order No.32290.
On August 15,2011,Grand View PV Solar Two,LLC (Grand View Solar)petitioned
to intervene pursuant to Rule of Procedure 71 of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission,IDAPA
31.01.01.071.Grand View Solar claims that,as a developer of solar QF projects in Idaho,it has
a direct and substantial interest in this proceeding regarding the methodology used by Idaho
Power to calculate Interconnect Solar’s avoided cost rates.
On August 22,2011,idaho Power filed a Motion in Opposition to Grand View
Solar’s Petition to Intervene.Idaho Power maintains that Grand View Solar’s Petition should be
denied because Grand View Solar has other opportunities before the Commission to address its
issues and because Grand View Solar’s involvement would cause costly delay and unnecessary
confusion of the issues.In addition,Idaho Power argues that much of the information in
Interconnect Solar’s Agreement is confidential and proprietary and,therefore,inappropriate for
review by a competitor in solar development.
On August 23,2011,Grand View Solar filed an answer to Idaho Power’s Motion in
Opposition.On August 25,Interconnect Solar filed a response to Idaho Power’s Motion and
Grand View’s answer.The Commission’s Rules of Procedure governing intervention (Rules 71
through 75)provide that “[amy party opposing a petition to intervene must do so by motion in
opposition filed within seven (7)days after receipt of the petition to intervene....“IPUC Rule
75.The intervention rules do not provide for additional filings.Therefore,the Commission will
ORDERNO.32350 1
not consider the arguments addressed in Grand View So1ars answer filed on August 23 or
Interconnect Solar’s response filed on August 25,2011.
DISCUSSION
Afler reviewing Grand View Solar’s petition for intervention and Idaho Power’s
Motion in Opposition,we conclude that Grand View Solar should not be granted intervenor
status in this case.This Commission has a long-standing practice of liberally granting
intervention to persons who allege a direct and substantial interest in a proceeding.However,the
Commission’s consideration of a power purchase contract between Idaho Power and
Interconnect Solar is not the appropriate forum for Grand View Solar to debate generally about
how avoided costs are calculated.Consequently,allowing Grand View Solar to intervene in this
proceeding would not serve the purposes of intervention as described by Rule 74 of the Rules of
Procedure.We find that Grand View Solar’s interests are better served by participating as a
party to the third phase of the generic PURPA case (GNR-E-1 1-03)currently before the
Commission.It is through Case No.GNR-E-l 1-03 that the Commission intends to address the
larger issues surrounding avoided cost calculations and methodologies.Accordingly,Grand
View Solar’s Petition to Intervene in this proceeding is denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Grand View Solar’s Petition to Intervene is denied.
ORDER NO.32350 2
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this 3/
day of August 2011
ATTEST:
Jan D.JeweI1(
Cbmmission Secretary
O:JPC-E-1 1-lOks3
MACK A.REDFORD,COMMISSIONER
6Lc L/&
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ORDER NO.32350 3