20140131order_no_32913_correction_sheet.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
January 31,2014
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
GRAND VIE’,V PV SOLAR TWO,LLC,)
)CASE NO.IPC-E-11-15
COMPLAINANT,)
)
v.)
ORDER NO.32913
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,)CORRECTION SHEET
)
RESPONDENT.)
Consistent with the Commission’s decision and instructions in Order No.32974,the
following changes are made to final Order No.32913 pursuant to Idaho Code §6 1-626(3).
Page 16,Paragraph I reads:
“Having decided the disputed issue of REC ownership in the PURPA
investigation [case],”the Commission found it appropriate to consistently
apply the REC ownership decision in this case.Id.at 18.We affirm that
decision in this Order.”
Should read:
“Having decided the disputed issue of REC ownership in the PURPA
investigation [case],”the Commission foui4 finds it appropriate to
consistently apply the property interest factors regarding REC ownership
decision set out in Order Nos.32697 and 32802 to the REC dispute in this
case.Id.at 18.Order Nos.32697 at 45-47;32802 at 18-21.Applying those
property interest factors to the dispute in this case,leads us to find that REC
ownership should be equally divided between the parties in this adjudication.
We affirm that decision in this Order.”
Pages 16-17 reads:
“Consequently,we conclude that the REC and LEO issues are not two
separate and distinct issues.”
Should read:
“Consequently,we conclude that although the REC and LEO issues are not
two separate and distinct issues,they are intertwined in this particular case.
ORDER NO.32913
CORRECTION SHEET 1
Page 26,Conclusions Section reads:
“We conclude that Grand View’s insistence that Idaho Power disclaim REC
ownership left the QF unwilling to enter into a binding and unconditional
PURPA contract with Idaho Power.Therefore,we conclude that Grand View
did not create a legally enforceable obligation in this case.”
Should read:
“We conclude that Grand View’s insistence that Idaho Power disclaim REC
ownership left the QF unwilling to enter into a binding and unconditional
PURPA contract with Idaho Power.We also conclude that Grand View was
not willing to unconditionally obligate and bind itself to supply power to the
utility.Therefore,we conclude that Grand View did not create a legally
enforceable obligation in this case.”
DATED at Boise,Idaho this 3 /day of January 2014.
/1 ir
1’4i4_kd /
Jejii D.Jewell ()Cnmission Secretary
bls/O:IPC-E-1 115 dh3 Final Order 32913 Correction Sheet
ORDER NO.32913
CORRECTION SHEET 2