20171019_Daphne1.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1
DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
COMMISSIONER RAPER
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF

FROM: DAPHNE HUANG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2017

SUBJECT: IDAHO POWER’S AND SHOROCK’S STIPULATED MOTION TO
SEPARATE DISPUTED ISSUES FROM THE APPLICATION TO
APPROVE THEIR AGREEMENT, CASE NO. IPC-E-17-14

On September 28, 2017, Idaho Power Company applied to the Commission to approve or
reject its Energy Sales Agreement (“Agreement”) with Shorock Hydro, Inc. (“Shorock”). The
Agreement falls under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), and is a
replacement contract for the sale of electric energy to Idaho Power from Shorock’s Rock Creek 1
Hydro project (“Facility”) near Twin Falls, Idaho. Shorock objects to the Company’s inclusion
in the Agreement of: (1) “90%/110%” provisions (relating to surplus energy); and (2) provisions
relating to Operation and Maintenance (O&M) charges in the Generator Interconnection
Agreement. Application at 2. However, Shorock and Idaho Power agreed to submit the
Agreement for Commission approval, and initially agreed to address the disputed issues in their
comments, for the Commission to resolve. Id. Idaho Power requested a final Commission
decision before January 15, 2018, when the existing contract expires. Id. at 6. The Commission
issued a Notice of Application and Notice of Modified Procedure with comment deadlines.
Order No. 33912.
On October 16, 2017, Idaho Power and Shorock filed a stipulated motion to separate the
disputed issues from the request to approve their Agreement. Also, the Renewable Energy
Coalition (REC) filed a petition to intervene on October 12, 2017, which will be addressed
separately, after the deadline for objections has passed. Idaho Power’s and Shorock’s stipulated
motion is now before the Commission.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2
STIPULATED MOTION
Idaho Power and Shorock (hereafter the “Parties”) state they were informed that third
parties intended to intervene in this case. Motion at 2. The third parties expressed “desire to
conduct potentially extensive discovery and request a technical hearing regarding the 90%/110%
and O&M issues.” Id. This raised concern by the Parties that the processing of their Application
would be delayed, “potentially causing the existing contract to lapse, [and] endangering the
designation of the Rock Creek 1 Hydro Facility as a network resource on Idaho Power’s system.”
Id.
Accordingly, the Parties agreed to separate the approval of the Agreement from
determination of the 90%/110% and O&M issues, but agreed that the Agreement would “remain
subject to the outcome of a Commission ruling” on the disputed issues in the future. Id. at 2-3.
The Parties agreed that Shorock, possibly in conjunction with other interested parties, would file
a separate Application or Complaint challenging Idaho Power’s inclusion of 90%/110% and
O&M provisions in its energy sales agreements. Id.
The Parties ask that the Commission vacate the procedural schedule in Order No. 33912,
and set a 21-day comment period under modified procedure.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no objection to the Parties’ stipulated motion. Staff agrees to the 21-day
comment period proposed by the Parties, and recommends setting a deadline of 14 days after
comments are due for the Company to reply.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to vacate the procedural schedule set in Order No. 33912, and
order a 21-day comment period, as requested by the Parties, and a 14-day reply period as
proposed by Staff?

I:\Legal\LMEMOS\IPCE1714_djh2.doc