20120113final_order_no_32437.pdf

Offce of the Secretar
Service Date
Januar 13,2012
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
HOKU MATERIALS, INC.,
v.
)
) CASE NO. IPC-E-1l-28
)
)
)
)
) ORDER NO. 32437
)
)
COMPLAINANT,
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
RESPONDENT.
On December 29,2011, Hoku Materials, Inc. fied a formal complaint against Idaho
Power Company requesting that the Commission not allow the utilty to terminate service to
Hoku for failure to pay its monthly contractul minimum payments. Hoku is a special contract
customer of Idaho Power and is constrcting a new polysilcon manufacturing facilty in
Pocatello. Complaint at ~ 5. In the complaint, Hoku concedes it did not pay its November
electrc bil, due and payable December 2 i, 2011. Pursuant to Utilty Customer Relations Rule
603, Idaho Power notified Hoku on December 27, 2011, that service would be terminated on
Januar 3,2012, unless payment is received before the termination date. Hoku suggests tht its
November bil (approximately $1.896 milion) may be satisfied by withdrawing the same amount
from the existing $4.0 milion cash deposit held by Idaho Power. Id at ~ 3.
On December 30, 2011, Idaho Power fied an "Answer, Motion to Dismiss, and
Motion to Set Termination Date" in response to the complaint. In its Answer, Idaho Power
requests that the Commission either dismiss the complaint "and/or set a date as soon as possible
by which Idaho Power may terminate electric service to Hoku." Answer at 1. Pursuant to
Customer Relations Rule 256, the utilty requests expeditious relief because of the "imminent
financial harm to Idaho Power and its customers." Id citing IDAPA 31.01.01.256.
Based upon the pleadings, the Commission found there was good cause to expedite
this proceeding. On Januar 5, 2012, the Commission issued Order No. 32431 directing Hoku to
respond to Idaho Power's Answer and Motion, and scheduled oral argument for Janua 11,
\2012. Order No. 32431 at 4-5. Hoku filed a timely response and the parties paricipated at the
oral arguent. On Januar 13, 2012, the paries supplemented their facts presented at oral
argument.
ORDER NO. 32437 1
BACKGROUND
A. The Special Contract
1. The Original Special Contract. It is helpful to review the history of the contractual
relationship between Hoku and Idaho Power. In September 2008, Hoku and Idaho Power first
entered into a special contract to supply electric power to Hoku. After an extensive public
process, the Commission in March 2009 approved the special contract with an effective date of
June 1, 2009. Order No. 30748 at 1. Under the terms of the original contract, Hoku's peak
monthly demand was not to exceed 82 MW. The contract contemplated that Hoku's demand for
energy would increase over time as the production facilty became fully operationaL. The paries
anticipated that this "ramping" of production would allow adequate time for Idaho Power to
secure new power and interconnection resources necessar to accommodate Hoku's new load.
Under the original contract, Hoku would tae service under two rate blocks. The first
block was equivalent to Idaho Power's avoided cost rates in 2009. At the time, Staff reported
that the paries chose this approach because "it would afford Hoku the certainty associated with a
fixed price durng the life of the contract" through June 1, 2013. Order No. 30748 at 3. The
second block of 25 MW was priced commensurate with Idaho Power's Schedule 19- T rates. The
special contract also required Hoku to "take-or-pay" the first block of power. Under the tae-or-
pay provision, Hoku would be required to either "take" power every month or would be required
to "pay" a monthly minimum payment regardless of consumption. Id at 2.
2. The Amended Contract. On May 28, 2009, Idaho Power fied a motion seeking
the Commission's approval to delay the commencement of the special contract with Hoku. On
June 23, 2009, Idaho Power submitted an "amended" special contract. Among other terms, the
paries agreed to delay the start date of the amended contract until December 1,2009. Order No.
30869. In approving the amended contract, the Commission was "mindful of the curent
economic downtur which precipitated Hoku's decision to seek a delay in the sta date of its
(special contract) with Idaho Power." Order No. 30869 at 4.
3. The Waiver. On November 29,2009, Idaho Power entered into a letter agreement
with Hoku to temporarly waive Hoku's monthly minimum charge (the tae-or-pay provision).
Order No. 31005 at 1. Under the paries' letter agreement, Idaho Power temporarily waived the
minimum energy charge until such time as the contracted load exceeds 70% or until March 31,
2011, whichever occurs earliest. In Order No. 31005 issued Februar 12,2010, the Commission
ORDER NO. 32437 2
approved the temporar waiver of the take-or-pay provision. The Commission acknowledged
that the fuher delay will assist Hoku in establishing a "firm footing amidst the curent adverse
business climate." Order No. 31005 at 5. The Commission expressed concern that the fuher
change to the amended special contract not unduly har Idaho Power's remaining customers.
Id Thus, under the take-or-pay provision, Hoku was required to either take-or-pay for a certain
amount of energy starting April 1, 2011. Order No. 31005 at 4.
B. The Complaint
In its complaint Hoku maintains that its facilty is not yet "operational and producing
revenue." Complaint at ~ 5. Consequently, Hoku must draw on various reserves or loans to pay
its monthly operating costs under its amended special contract. Hoku insists that terminating
electric service to its facilty means that Hoku canot complete construction of its plant, store
chemicals on-site, and threatens 160 jobs, and the protection of various facilty "including piping
systems, pumps, motors and sensitive electronic equipment that must be kept from freezing."
Complaint at ~ 4.
Hoku acknowledges that it received a "Notice of (Service) Termination" from Idaho
Power dated December 27, 2011. The final Notice provided that uness Idaho Power received
the November payment, Hoku's service will be terminated Januar 3, 2012. Idaho Power Atch.
2. Hoku states that it advised Idaho Power of its curent cash flow shortage and that payment of
the November invoice could not be made until Janua 2012. Id at ~ 5. Consequently, Hoku
fied this complaint pursuant to the Commission's Customer Relations Rule 605 requesting that
the Commission stay termination. Rule 605 provides that "( n)o industrial or large commercial
customer shall have its service terminated unless the Commission is given written notice seven
(7) days before the termination. The Commission may stay termination of service upon its
finding that the public interest requires service to be maintained to the customer." IDAPA
31.21.01.605.
IDAHO POWER ANSWER
A. Motion to Dismiss
In its Answer, Idaho Power admits that representatives of Hoku advised the utilty
that "curent cash flow shortge was such that payment of the November invoice may not occur
until Januar 2012. At no time did Idaho Power consent to Hoku making late payments or
postponing the termination of service to Hoku." Answer at ~ 5.
ORDER NO. 32437 3
Idaho Power asserts that Hoku has failed to allege any dispute or controversy between
the paries. Id at ~ 11. Idaho Power insists that it has "gone out of its away to accommodate
Hoku" by modifying the original special contract, delaying its implementation, and bifucating
the time when Hoku must make deposits. Id Idaho Power asserts that Hoku has missed the
November payment and "has failed to provide Idaho Power with any assurance that such a
payment will be forthcoming." Id at ~ 12.
Idaho Power believes that Hoku has fied its complaint as a means of "forestallng
disconnections so that it can continue to receive service from Idaho Power without paying for
such service even though no real controversy exists between the paries." Id at ~ 13. The
Company maintains that it canot terminate service to a customer once a customer has fied a
complaint "so long as the customer continues to pay all amounts not in dispute, including curent
utility bils." Id at ~ 12 citng Rule 402.02, IDAPA 31.21.01.402.02 (emphasis added).
Consequently, Idaho Power asserts that there is no real controversy between the paries because
Hoku is bound under the tae-or-pay provision of the amended special contract to pay the
monthly minimum charge. Id at ~ 13. Consequently, Idaho Power requests that the
Commission dismiss the complaint on fewer than 14 days' notice and set a termination date. Id
at ~~ 10-11.
B. The Rule L Deposit
Idaho Power states that in June 2011, it advised Hoku that it must submit a deposit
pursuant to the utility's Rule L taiff and the terms of the special contract. Rule L generally
provides that a deposit not to exceed two times the customer's actual or estimated highest
monthly bil may be required. i In a letter dated June 15,2011, Idaho Power notified Hoku that a
"cash deposit or other acceptable security in the amount of $4,000,000 is required at this time
with a supplemental deposit in the amount of $1,800,000 required on December 31, 2011."
Idaho Power Atch. 3. In its Answer, Idaho Power asserts that it subsequently agreed to defer the
date by which the subsequent $1.8 milion deposit is due to March 2, 2012, "so long as Hoku
remained curent on payments to Idaho Power pursuant to the (special contract)." Answer at~ 9;
Atch.4.
i Customer Relations Rule 601 provides that an "industrial customer may be required to pay a deposit or make an
advanced payment in accordance with the utility's taiff fied with the Commission." IDAPA 31.21.01.601.
ORDER NO. 32437 4
Because Hoku is no longer curent in its monthly payments, Idaho Power argues the
deposit extension from December 31, 2011 to March 2,2012 (for the additional $1.8 milion) is
no longer effective. Id ~ 15. "Accordingly, the remaining $1.8 milion deposit amount is due to
Idaho Power by December 31, 2011. Pursuant to Customer Relations Rule 602.02, Idaho Power
has the authority to terminate service in the event it does not receive the required $1.8 milion
deposit payment by December 31, 2011." Id
Even though Hoku consented to using deposit fuds to pay the November biling,
Idaho Power maintains that there is no provision in Rule L "whereby customers can request to
use (their) deposit(s) to pay monthly charges. . . ." Id at ~ 14. The utilty claims that even if it
were to use the existing deposit to pay Hoku's November bil, the fuds held in deposit "would
quickly dwindle to nothing within the first few days of January 2012" because the December
payment would become due. Id at ~ 16. If Hoku's December bil remained unpaid, then all but
about $100,000 of the original $4 milion deposit would be depleted. Id at ~ 16.
Idaho Power maintains that it will be adversely impacted if it is required to provide
service to a very large customer without receiving any payment for such service.
One outcome of such a scenaro would be that (Idaho Power) would be
required to accelerate additional accumulated deferral investment tax credits
(ADITC) which the Commission authorized in Order No. 32424. Conversely,
the Company's revenue shortfalls as a result of Hoku's failure to pay could
potentially jeopardize customers' ability to share in the Company's earings
pursuant to the same Commission Order. Thus, Idaho Power and its
customers wil experience imminent and immediate har (by a detriment of
approximately $65,000 per day) by Hoku's failure to pay its invoices and if
the Company is required to continue to provide its service.
Id. at ~ 17. Consequently, Idaho Power requests that the Commission set a specific date as soon
as possible by which Idaho Power can terminate service to Hoku. The utility fuher requests
that such an Order state that Hoku can avoid service termination if Hoku "brings curent all
outstanding amounts it owes to (Idaho Power) as well as immediately provides Idaho Power the
additional required $1.8 milion deposit." Id at ~ 18.
B. Hoku Response
In its timely response, Hoku asserts that the public interest requires that termination
of service be stayed. Response at ~ 2. Hoku notes that while the "public interest" standard is
"not susceptible of precise definition," the Commission must look to all relevant facts and
ORDER NO. 32437 5
circumstaces. Id at ~ 3 citng Browning Freight Lines v. Wood, 99 Idaho 174, 180,579 P.2d
120, 126 (1978); ScottishPower, Order No. 28213 at 33.
Since April 2011, Hoku maintans that it has paid approximately $11.57 millon in
monthly minimum charges even though it has not actually taken delivery of electricity.
Response at ~ 9. November 2011 was the first month that Hoku actually used power but only
consumed 220 kW of demand and 46,167 kWh of energy. If this energy had been biled under
Schedule 9T (Large General Service) the November bil would have been $2,732. Id at ~ 10.
Hoku insists in its response that the public interest compels a stay of termination.2 It
also argues for the first time that payment of its December 2011 bil should be stayed. Id at ~ 5.
Hoku requested the Commission impose the following stay conditions:
1. Direct Idaho Power to pay the November invoice ($1,895,656.26) from
the deposit.
2. No later than 15 days from when the Commission issues an Order in this
matter, require Hoku to replenish the deposit account in the amount of
$1,895,656.26.
3. Stay payment of the monthly contractul minimum amount under
amended special contract commencing December 1, 2011, until such time
as the Commission issues its final Order in the new proceeding.
4. During the stay, the Commission should require Hoku to pay for monthly
energy it actually consumes at rates contained in Schedule 19- T. In
addition, the Commission should establish a procedural schedule to
expeditiously decide the new proceeding.
5. During the stay, preclude Idaho Power from terminating service for non-
payment of the claimed $1.8 milion additional deposit.
Response at ~ 5.
Hoku also asserts that Idaho Power's demand for an additional $1.8 milion deposit
(for cumulative amount of $5.8 milion) is uneasonable for two reasons. First, Hoku maintans
2 Contemporaneously with its response, Hoku also fied a second "complaint." This second pleading (fied Januar
9, 2012) seeks reformation of the amended special contract; reparations; and while the case is being processed,
suspension of the first-block take-or-pay provision. At the oral argument the parties conceded that the new
proceeding was just fied; the new proceeding is a separate case; and a record needs to be developed in the new case.
Tr. at 4-5, 30-31. In addition, the Commission believes that the new proceeding is more properly considered to be a
petition rather than a complaint. A complaint usually relates to an act or omission under law, while a petition may
seek an amendment or stay of contracts or orders. Compare procedural Rules 53 and 54, IDAPA 31.01.01.053 and
.054.
ORDER NO. 32437 6
that this deposit amount is not required by the amended special contract and has not been
approved by the Commission. Id at ~ 17. Second, given Hoku's actual projected consumption
and its request to suspend the minimum monthly payments, the $4 milion deposit should be
suffcient. Id at ~ 18. Finally, in response to Idaho Power's allegation that there is no
controversy between the paries, Hoku points to its new pleading as demonstrating "that there is
indeed a substatial and legitimate dispute between the paries." Id at ~ 24.
ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument was held Januar 11, 2012. Idaho Power, Hoku and Commission Staff
entered appearances but Staff presented no arguent.
1. Hoku. At oral arguent, Hoku's counsel, Mr. Miler, renewed the request that
termination be stayed and that the Commission suspend the monthly minimum payment due
under the amended special contract. Mr. Miler conceded that the November invoice had not
been paid but requested his recommendation that this arearage be recouped from the deposit
held by Idaho Power. He also maintained that Hoku would replenish the deposit held by Idaho
Power to make up for the November payment. He urged the Commission to move expeditiously
to resolve this new proceeding.
Mr. Miler was asked about the status of the December 2011 bil. Idaho Power's
counsel, Mr. Willams, indicated that the December bil was presented to Hoku on Janua 4,
2012 and is due Januar 19, 2012. Mr. Miler replied that the December minimum monthly
payment had not been paid and Hoku requested that such payment be suspended as requested in
the conditions set out above. Tr. at 8, 12.
2. Idaho Power. Mr. Wiliams again requested that the Commission dismiss Hoku's
request to stay termination. He urged the Commission to establish a termination date at which
time Idaho Power could then recover the monthly arearages from the deposit account. Even if
the deposit were used to bring Hoku "current" in its payments, the deposit account would be
depleted and would need to be replenished. Tr. at 12-13.
Mr. Wiliams argued that continuing to provide service Hoku without the requisite
monthly minimum payments would be adverse to the public interest, and to Idaho Power and its
ratepayers for three reasons. First, he stated approximately $1.6 milion of the monthly
minimum payment flows through the power cost adjustment (PCA) mechanism to offset the
utilty's anual power costs. Second, the failure to recover the November and December
ORDER NO. 32437 7
payments would cause a downward adjustment in the Company's 2011 earings and reduce the
amount of revenue available for sharing with customers. In addition, he claimed that the failure
of Hoku to pay its minimum monthly payments would adversely affect ratepayers by requiring
greater use of the accumulated deferred investment ta credit (ADITC) so that the Company
could maintain its 9.5% retur on equity. He concluded that the loss of Hoku revenue under the
amended special contract would cause other customer classes to makeup the revenues
attbutable to Hoku.
3. Hoku RebuttaL. On rebuttal, Mr. Miler renewed his request that the deposit be
used to pay the November bil; that Hoku should be allowed to replenish the deposit amount to
$4.0 milion; and that the minimum monthly payments due Idaho Power under the amended
special contract be suspended until the Commission has decided the new complaint.
Commissioner Smith asked why Hoku waited to fie its complaints. Mr. Miler replied that
Hoku paricipated in the recently completed Idaho Power rate case (Case No. IPC-E-11-08) in
good faith. He said that Hoku's informal efforts to obtain relief under the special contract were
unsuccessfuL. Thus, the complaints were recently filed.
SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS
On Janua 13,2012, Hoku filed a "Supplemental Statement of Facts." Hoku states
that it issued instrctions to its ban to make a wire transfer to Idaho Power for the November
payment in the amount of $1,896,656.26. Hoku Supplement at 1. Hoku asserts that in
accordance with customar baning practices "Idaho Power will receive the transferred on
today's date." Id Consequently, Hoku suggests that it is not necessar for the Commission to
enter decisions on Hoku's termination complaint or upon Idaho Power's Motion to Dismiss and
Motion to Set Termination Date. Neverteless, Hoku requests that the Commission stay
payment of the December 2011 bil and impose the other stay conditions set forth above. Id. at ~
4.
Also on Janua 13, 2012, Idaho Power fied a Supplementar Statement of Facts.
Idaho Power acknowledges that it received Hoku's wire transfer. However, the Company also
notes that interest has accrued on the November late payment in the amount of $13,453.04.
Idaho Power maintains that this amount is immediately due and the utilty intends to terminate
service if the amount is not immediately paid unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
ORDER NO. 32437 8
Idaho Power also submits that Hoku failed to disclose material facts to the
Commission at the oral arguent. In paricular, Idaho Power asserts that nearly two hours
before the oral argument began; Hoku had made an 8-K fiing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) disclosing that Hoku had been granted access to $10 milion. Id at ~ 4.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
At oral arguent both paries urged the Commission to expedite its consideration of
the termination complaint. We accommodated these requests and ordered oral argument on
Januar 11, 2012. Two days after oral argument, both Hoku and Idaho Power fied
Supplementa Statements of Fact. Hoku alleged that it has authorized its ban to wire Idaho
Power the November payment in the amount of $1,896,656.26. Having authorized its ban to
make payment on the November bil, Hoku insists there is no need for the Commission to issue
decisions regarding Hoku's complaint contesting termination of service or upon Idaho Power's
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Set Termination Date. For its part, Idaho Power confirms that
it received the November payment but interest has accrued on the late payment.
At the outset, we do not agree with Hoku's assertion that there is no need for the
Commission to issue an Order regarding the termination complaint. Although we recognize that
Hoku has now made its November payment, Hoku also asked in its response in this case to
suspend payment of its December 2011 bil. Despite Hoku's recogntion that the reformation
case is a separate and distinct proceeding, it nevertheless asks the Commission to suspend its
December payment (and futue payments) in this proceeding. Simply put, in less than seven
days Hoku's December 2011 minimum monthly payment is due and payable and the issue of
termination would arise again.
To bring this case to conclusion and based upon the outstanding issues in this case,
the Commission issues this Order. We decline to suspend Hoku's December 2011 minimum
monthly payment due Januar 19, 2012, for three reasons. First, the December bil was
submitted to Hoku on Januar 4. As confirmed at the oral argument, the December bil is due
Januar 19, 2012. On January 9, 2012, Hoku fied its response and requested for the first time
that the Commission stay Hoku's payment of its December monthly bil under the amended
special contract retroactive to December 1, 2011. We find this request untimely because it was
made after the bil was rendered. We also find the prohibition against retroactive ratemakng
prevents the Commission from retroactively staying the collection of contract rates previously
ORDER NO. 32437 9
approved by the Commission. This ratemaking treatment also is consistent with section 14.2 of
the amended special contract? Idaho Code § 61-502. As conceded by Hoku, the issue
reforming the amended special contract is the subject of the separate case.
Second, we fuher find that Idaho Power and its other ratepayers will be adversely
hared by Hoku's failure to pay its December bil. As Mr. Willams explained, approximately
$1.6 milion of Hoku's monthly minimum payment flows through the PCA to offset power costs.
As indicated in Idaho Power's Exhibit NO.3 to the recent rate case settlement stipulation, Hoku's
first block and second block revenues were included in the utilty's 2012 revenue forecast. Exh.
3, p. 24 of 24. Staff witness Lobb also testified in the recently completed rate case that Hoku's
first block revenue is included in the PCA. Tr. at 708, (Case No. IPC-E-11-08). Fina.lly,
reducing year-end 2011 revenue would result in a downward adjustment in the Company's
earings and ultimately reduce the revenue available for sharng with all customers, including
Hoku. Thus, it is contrar to the public interest to suspend the December payment.
Third, we find Hoku's explanation on why it did not earlier seek relief from
termination of service or special amended contract unpersuasive. As indicated in the affdavit of
Scott Paul, Hoku's CEO, the supply of poly silcon began to exceed demand by an "extraordinary
wide" margin in the second half of 2011. Affidavit at ~ 3. This oversupply resulted in prices
fallng below the industry's average production costs. Mr. Paul estimated that this price disparity
wil continue for at least the next six months. Id Thus, the market pressures on Hoku are not
new.
Finally, we also note that the United States Supreme Cour has recently addressed the
public interest stadard as it relates to rate agreements. In Morgan Stanley Capital Group v.
Public Utilty District No. 1 of Snohomish County, the Supreme Cour observed that when
"commercial paries . . . avail themselves of rate agreements, the principal regulatory
responsibilty is not to relieve a contracting pary of an uneasonable rate." 555 U.S. 527, 534-
35, 128 S.Ct. 2733, 2740 (2008). The Cour also noted that when evaluating contractully set
rates, the question is "whether the rates seriously har the public interest, not. . . whether (the
rates) are unair to one of the paries that voluntaily assented to the contract." Id. at 546-47, 128
3 Section 14.2 of the contract provides in pertinent par that the parties intended by this provision "that the rate
making stadards to be used in making any revisions or changes in rates, and the judicial review of any revisions or
changes in rates, wil be the same standards that are applicable to Idaho intrastate tariff rates."
ORDER NO. 32437 10
S.Ct. at 2746. Thus, we find that the public interest does not support a suspension of the
December payment.
Next we tu to Idaho Power's request that the Commission require Hoku to
immediately pay an additional deposit in the amount of $1.8 millon. The requirement for the
$5.8 milion cumulative deposit appears to be a letter from Idaho Power to Hoku dated June 15,
2011, that directed Hoku to make a $4.0 milion initial deposit and "a supplemental deposit in the
amount of $1,800,000 required on December 31, 201 I." Idaho Power Atch. 3. Because Hoku
missed its November biling, Idaho Power argues that the entire $5.8 milion deposit is due and
payable. Answer at ~ 11.
We find that Idaho Power's request for a $5.8 millon deposit is not in conformance
with its Rule L tarff. Rule L provides that ''the amount of the deposit shall not exceed two times
the customer's or applicant's actual or estimated highest monthly bil." Given Hoku's minimum
monthly payment under the amended special contract," we find that a $4.0 milion deposit is
reasonable and comports with the provisions of Rule L. Customer Relations Rule 601, IDAP A
31.21.01.601.
In conclusion, because we decline to retroactively suspend the monthly minimum
payment for December 2011, Hoku's minimum monthly payment for December 2011 is due
Januar 19,2012, in accordance with section 9.2 of the amended special contract. If Hoku fails
to timely pay the December monthly minimum payment plus interest for the November late
payment by the close of business on Januar 19, 2012, then Idaho Power may issue a Notice of
Termination and terminate service to Hoku on Januar 26,2012. If service is terminated on that
date, Idaho Power is instructed to remove the due amount from the deposit account and book that
amount to calendar year 2011.
We also direct Idaho Power and Hoku to immediately enter into negotiations
regarding Hoku' s Petition to reform the amended special contract. Staff counsel shall faciltate
the negotiation in an effort to determine whether the paries can settle the issue in Hoku's
reformation petition. Without deciding the issue, we advise the paries that waiver of the first
block energy charge beginning with the January 2012 bil should be par of their negotiations. If
settlement negotiations are not fritful, the Commission wil issue fuher instructions regarding
the processing of the petition.
ORDER NO. 32437 11
ORDER
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that Hoku's complaint is granted in par and denied in
par. Hoku's request to suspend its December 2011 bil is denied. Hoku's request to avoid
paying the additional $1.8 milion in deposit above the required $4.0 milion balance is granted.
IT is FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Set a Termination Date is granted in part and denied in par. If Hoku fails to make its December
monthly minimum payment plus interest by the close of business on January 19, 2012, then
Idaho Power, afer issuance ofthe proper notices and failure by Hoku to cure the deficiency, may
terminate service to Hoku on Januar 26, 2012. If service is terminated, then Idaho Power is
directed to remove a like amount from the cash deposit and book that amount to CY 2011. Idaho
Power's request to raise the cash deposit to $5.8 milion is denied.
IT is FURTHER ORDERED that Idaho Power and Hoku enter into immediate
negotiations to see if settlement of the Petition for Reformation is possible. The paries shall
advise us of their progress no later than February 1,2012.
THIS is A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. IPC-E-11-28
may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code § 61-626.
ORDER NO. 32437 12
j'?r"
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilties Commission at Boise, Idaho this .:
day of Januar 2012.
PAUL , PRESIDENT
d~.-
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
~
ATTEST:
~~~~
Commission Secretar
bls/O:IPC-E-II-28_dh2
ORDER NO. 32437 13