20111109final_order_no_32397.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 9,201 1
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR )CASE NO.IPC-E-11-16
APPROVAL OF ITS ENERGY EFFICIENCY )
INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE )
IDAHO OFFICE OF ENERGY RESOURCES )ORDER NO.32397
__________________________________________________________________________________
)
On September 29,2011,the Commission issued an Order approving Idaho Power
Company’s Energy Efficiency Incentive Agreement with the Idaho Office of Energy Resources
(“OER”).On October 20,2011,Idaho Power filed a Petition for Clarification andlor
Reconsideration of Order No.32368,which asks that the Commission clarify what the term
“implemented”means as used in the Order.The Commission has reviewed the Company’s Petition
and clarifies Order No.32368 as set forth below.
ORDER NO.32368
On August 10,2011,Idaho Power asked the Commission to approve the Company’s July
21,2011,Energy Efficiency Incentive Agreement with the OER.Under the Agreement OER will
seek to qualify its federal stimulus-funded K-12 public school retrofit projects for Idaho Power’s
energy efficiency incentive programs.If a project qualifies,Idaho Power will deposit a
corresponding energy efficiency incentive payment into a dedicated fund for use on other projects.
The parties believe their arrangement will maximize dollars available for public school,energy
efficiency projects.
On September 29,2011,the Commission issued an Order approving the Agreement as
follows:
The Commission approves the Agreement.As the Agreement was not effective
until July 21,2011,it applies only to projects implemented on or after that date.
When the Company evaluates whether an OER-funded project qualifies for a
DSM program incentive payment,the Company must use the same criteria it
would use to evaluate any other entity’s project.
Order No.32368 at 2.
THE PETITION AND CORRESPONDING COMMENTS
Idaho Power’s Petition states that “OER has initiated several projects where actual
construction has begun at various schools that are part of its K-12 program prior to July 1,2011.”
The Company says it:
ORDER NO.32397 1
does not understand if Order No.32368’s reference to “implemented”on or after
July 21,2011,is intended to exclude those [OER-funded]projects that ...started
construction prior to July 21 from inclusion in the Agreement or if the
Commission’s intent was that only those projects that are completed and submit
payment applications on or after July 21 are eligible for inclusion in the terms of
the Agreement.
Petition at 3.
After Idaho Power filed its Petition,OER commented that OER understands
“implemented to mean when the K-l2 energy efficiency project retrofits are completed and final
documentation is submitted to the Idaho Power Company for reimbursement per their program
specifications.”See October 26,2011 Comment from OER.No other comments were received
regarding the Petition.
FINDINGS
Idaho Power’s Petition asks the Commission to clarify and/or reconsider Order No.
32368.See RP 325.After reviewing the Petition,the comments,and the record,the Commission
clarifies that the term “implemented”in Order No.32368 means exactly what OER understands it to
mean.As clarified,the pertinent paragraph in Order No.32368 reads:
The Commission approves the Agreement.As the Agreement was not effective
until July 21,2011,it applies only to projects implemented (i.e.,only to those K-
12 energy efficiency projects on which retrofits were completed and final
documentation was submitted to Idaho Power for reimbursement per the
Company ‘s program specifications)on or after that date.When the Company
evaluates whether an OER-funded project qualifies for a DSM program incentive
payment,the Company must use the same criteria it would use to evaluate any
other entity’s project.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Idaho Power’s Petition is granted.Order No.32368
is clarified as set forth above.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION/CLARIFICATION.Any
party aggrieved by this Order or other final or interlocutory Orders previously issued in this case
may appeal to the Supreme Court of Idaho pursuant to the Public Utilities Law and the Idaho
Appellate Rules.See Idaho Code §6 1-627.
ORDER NO.32397 2
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise,Idaho this
day of November 2011.
PAUL KJELL ER,PRESIDENT
/
MACK A.REDFORD,COMMISSIONER
MARSHA H.SMITH,COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
/_f\/flu
I ,k 7
Jn D.Jewel(1
Cimmission Secretary
O:IPC-E-1 1-16kk3 Clarification
ORDER NO.32397 3