20131216order_no_32950.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
December 16,2013
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GRAND VIEW PV SOLAR TWO, LLC,
CASE NO. IPC.8.11.15
COMPLAINANT,
v.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
ORDER NO. 32950
RESPONDENT.
On October 29,2013, the Commission issued final Order No. 32913 regarding Grand
View Solar Two's formal complaint against Idaho Power Company. In our final Order, the
Commission determined in the absence of an agreement by the parties, it was reasonable and
consistent with Idaho common property law interests to apportion the ownership of renewable
energy credits (RECs) equally between Grand View and Idaho Power. Order No. 32913 at 16.
The Commission also found Grand View had not perfected a "legally enforceable obligation"
(LEO) under the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The
Commission found that Grand View's purported offer to sell power to the utility was conditioned
on two points: removal of the REC provision in the draft Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA" or
"Agreement"); *d requiring Idaho Power to disclaim all REC ownership. Order No. 32913 at
20-22.
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On November 18, 2013, Grand View filed a Petition for Reconsideration raising three
primary issues. First, Grand View alleges the Commission failed to recognize that a LEO and a
PURPA contract are two distinct concepts. Grand View maintains that the Commission's Order
makes a LEO conditioned upon the parties entering into a PPA. Id. Second, Grand View asserts
the Commission has impermissibly tied the creation of a LEO to resolution of the REC
ownership issue. Id. at 3. Grand View maintains the Commission's final Order apportioning
REC ownership between the parties grants Idaho Power "a right of first refusal to purchase" the
RECs and compels Grand View to "outright gtfting of half of its RECs to the power company."
Id. at 5 (emphasis original). Finally, Grand View insists the Commission's final Order regarding
the adjudication of the REC dispute constitutes "retroactive ratemaking." Id. at 8. In particular,
oRDER NO. 329s0
Grand View ilgues that it filed its complaint in this proceeding and created a LEO before the
Commission issued its REC Order in the generic PURPA docket (GNR-E-I l-03) in December
20t2.
On November 25,2073,Idaho Power filed an answer to Grand View's Petition. The
utility urges the Commission to deny the Petition in its entirety. Idaho Power asserts Grand
View's Petition misstates the factual record and the utility maintains Grand View did not create a
legally enforceable obligation. Answer at 2-3. Idaho Power argues it was Grand View - not the
utility - that refused to obligate itself to provide power to the utility. Idaho Power maintains
there is substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's finding that Grand
View did not make a binding and unconditional offer to sell power to the utility because Grand
View's offer was conditioned upon receiving all the RECs and requiring Idaho Power to disclaim
all ownership of RECs.
DISCUSSION
Based upon our review of Grand View's Petition, Idaho Power's answer, and the
extensive record in this case, we grant Grand View's Petition so we may reconsider its
arguments in greater detail. Given the complexity of the issues and the press of our schedule, we
find that additional time is necessary to carefully consider the issues raised in Grand View's
Petition. We find that the record in this proceeding is sufficient and funher proceedings are
unnecessary for the Commission to review and resolve Grand View's Petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Grand
granted. The Commission will review the record and
soon as possible.
View's Petition for Reconsideration is
issue its final Order on reconsideration as
oRDERNO. 32950
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 1bfr
day of December 2013.
O^"A* lnA
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
bls/O:IPC-E-l I -l S_dh4_Reconsideration
oRDER NO. 32950