20130329Tamarck Energy Comments RE IPC Petition.pdf

Michael C. Creamer [ISB No. 4030]
Michael P. Lawrence [ISB No. 7288]
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP < 601 West Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720 - Office: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Tamarack Energy Partnership
. MAR 29
JTt
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Case No.: IPC-E-12-28
IN THE MATTER OF TARIFF ADVICE NO.
12-13 OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
AUTHORITY TO UPDATE SCHEDULE 89.
TAMARACK ENERGY
PARTNERSHIP'S COMMENTS
REGARDING IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
CLARIFICATION
Tamarack Energy Partnership ("Tamarack"), by and through its attorneys of record,
Givens Pursley LLP, submits the following comments on Idaho Power Company's Petition for
Clarification of Order No. 32758 ("Petition").
In the Petition, Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power" or "Company") asks the
Cornmission to clarify its "intent regarding the payment of interest on approximately $2.46
million in amounts authorized by Order No. 32758 to approximately 43 cogeneration and small
powr production projects." Petition at 1. Tamarack was not the power producer mentioned in
the Petition that inquired with Idaho Power about interest payments, Petition at 3 ¶ 6, but
nevertheless appreciates that the issue has been raised and that Idaho Power has sought
clarification from the Commission.
Idaho Power cited a number of the Commission's prior orders in which "the customer
deposit rate authorized by Utility Customer Relations Rule 106, IDAPA 31.21.01.106, currently
TAMARACK ENERGY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMENTS REGARDING Page 1 of 4
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
set at 1 percent during calendar year 2013 by Order No. 32684, has been authorized in other
proceedings involving customer refunds and deferred accounts." Petition at 3 17. Tamarack has
reviewed these orders and believes they support a determination that Idaho Power should pay
interest on the additional payment amounts resulting from the June 1, 2010 effective date of the
tariff authorized by Order No. 32758.
While some of the orders suggest that the Commission may order the accrual of interest
in connection with or as part of a penalty, others suggest that the Commission may order the
accrual of interest as part of a "true-up" in recognition of the time value of money held by one
party when it is determined it actually belongs to another. Tamarack believes this case falls into
the latter category of orders because it has no reason to believe that there was any unreasonable
conduct or violation of Commission rules or of statutes involved.
For example, the Commission directed payment of interest in connection with the
retroactive "true-up mechanism" approved in Order No. 29157. That case developed amidst a
dispute between Monsanto and PacifiCorp over whether their power supply agreement had
terminated and, if so, when. In 2003, the Commission denied PacifiCorp's request for an
"interim rate" that would apply if the agreement was found to have terminated at the end of
2001, and instead determined that "the existing contract rate would remain in effect" until the
dispute was resolved and new rate was established, at which point "a true up would occur."
Order No. 29157 at 2. As described by the Commission, "a true-up mechanism retroactive to the
termination date of the existing Agreement will be used to adjust the difference between the
existing rate and the new rate. The true-up amount will accrue interest calculated at the annual
interest rate on utility deposits." Id. See also Order No. 27660 (also involving the accrual of
interest in connection with a true-up process).
TAMARACK ENERGY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMENTS REGARDING Page 2 of 4
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
As noted by Idaho Power, the Commission in some cases also has ordered payment of
interest accrued on "deferred" refunds or rebates. See, e.g., Order Nos. 28099, 28366, 30272,
and 32162. The accrual of interest in these cases accounts for the incremental benefit accruing to
the party that held funds belonging to another, and distributes that benefit to the party who is
entitled to it.
Tamarack believes the Commission's prior orders support a determination that Idaho
Power pay interest at the rate authorized for customer deposits on the additional amounts owed
to producers such as Tamarack due to the backdated rates approved in Order No. 32758.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of March, 2013.
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
By
Michael C. Creamer
TAMARACK ENERGY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMENTS REGARDING Page 3 of 4
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 29th day of March, 2013, the foregoing was filed,
served, and copied as follows:
DOCUMENT FILED:
Jean D. Jewell, Commission Secretary LI U. S. Mail
Idaho Public Utilities Commission E Hand Delivered
472 West Washington Street Overnight Mail
Boise, ID 83702- 0074 Facsimile
Facsimile: 208-334-3762 E-mail
SERVICE COPIES TO:
Donovan Walker U. S. Mail
Idaho Power Company fl Hand Delivered
P0 Box 70 LI Overnight Mail
Boise, ID 83707 LI Facsimile
[e-mail] E-mail
TAMARACK ENERGY PARTNERSHIP'S COMMENTS REGARDING Page 4 of 4
IDAHO POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION