20120816Petition for Modification of Order.pdf

Williams • Bradbury
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
August 16, 2012
RECEIVE.
012AU6 16 PM 2:58
DAHO PU3L UTILITIES COMMISSiON
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
Re: IPC-E-10-56 through IPC-E-10-58
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed please find an original and seven copies of the following for filing in the
above referenced dockets:
1.Petition for Reconsideration of Order No. 32255 and Request for Expedited
Consideration, and
2.Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Larry F. Eisenstat and Daniel A.
Broderick of the firm Dickstein Shapiro LLP.
Please call should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rc,-,, WA))I-
Ronald L. Williams
RLW/jr
Enclosures
cc: Service List
1015 W. Hays Street - Boise, ID 83702
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone] - www.williamsbradbury.com
Ronald L. Williams ISB No. 3034
Williams Bradbury, Attorneys at Law
1015 W. Hays Street
Boise, ID 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
RECEIVED
212AUG 16 PM 2:59
rr ILI! .j )4
Larry F. Eisenstat
Daniel A. Broderick
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Murphy Flat Mesa, LLC
Counsel for Murphy Flat Energy, LLC
Counsel for Murphy Flat Wind, LLC
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMINATION REGARDING A FIRM
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
IDAHO POWER AND MURPHY FLAT MESA,
LLC
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMINATION REGARDING A FIRM
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
IDAHO POWER AND MURPHY FLAT ENERGY
LLC
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR A
DETERMINATION REGARDING A FIRM
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
IDAHO POWER AND MURPHY FLAT WIND,
LLC
Case No. IPC-E-10-56
Case No. IPC-E-10-57
Case No. IPC-E-10-58
DSMDB-3083970
PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER NO. 32255
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED TREATMENT
On June 8, 2011, the Commission rejected three Firm Energy Sales Agreements (the
"Agreements") between Murphy Flat Mesa, LLC, Murphy Flat Energy, LLC and Murphy Flat
Wind, LLC (collectively, "Murphy Flat") and Idaho Power Company ("Idaho Power"), all of
which were executed by Murphy Flat on December 13, 2010. The basis for rejection was solely
that Idaho Power did not execute those Agreements prior to December 14, 2010,1 after which
time Murphy Flat no longer was eligible to receive published avoided cost rates. However, in its
Cedar Creek Wind 2 and Rainbow Ranch Wind, LLC 3 orders, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC") determined that in rejecting the Agreements, the Murphy Flat Order
violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA").4 In those orders, FERC
held that QFs are entitled to receive avoided cost rates calculated as of the date a legally
enforceable obligation is incurred, and that this date cannot simply be the date on which a
contract is executed by the purchasing utility.
FERC's rulings in Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch were issued subsequent to the
Murphy Flat Order and subsequent to the twenty-one day time period for filing a petition for
reconsideration of the Murphy Flat Order. Consequently, those orders constitute new facts or
information justifying modification of the Murphy Flat Order. Accordingly, pursuant to Idaho
'Idaho PUC Order No. 32255, Case No. IPC-E-10-56 etal. (June 8, 2011) ("Murphy Flat Order").
2 Cedar Creek Wind, LLC, 137 FERC ¶ 61,006 (2011) ("Cedar Creek").
Rainbow Ranch Wind, LLC and Rainbow West Wind, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,077 (2012) ("Rainbow
Ranch").
16 U.S.C. 824a-3(h).
2
DSMDB-3083970
Code § 61-624 and the Idaho PUC's rules of procedure,5 Murphy Flat respectfully petitions the
Commission to modify its Murphy Flat Order and approve the Agreements.6
I. Idaho Power Incurred Legally Enforceable Obligations at Least by December 13,
2010.
This case shares in all material respects the factual circumstances underlying FERC's
rulings in Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch. In those matters, FERC concluded that two of this
Commission's orders issued on the same date as the Murphy Flat Order were inconsistent with
PURPA and FERC's implementing regulations. In Rainbow Ranch, the more recent of the two
rulings, FERC outlined the factual similarities upon which it reapplied its finding in Cedar
Creek.8 Each of those factual similarities likewise is present here:
Murphy Flat has self-certified as a qualifying facility ("QF").9
Murphy Flat entered into formal negotiations to enter into the
Agreements with Idaho Power before the new rules concerning
eligibility for published avoided cost rates went into effect, i.e.,
before December 14, 2010.10
Murphy Flat signed the Agreements prior to that date, i.e., on
December 13, 2010.
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Rules of Procedure, Rule 53.
6 While Murphy Flat did not seek reconsideration of or attempt to appeal the Murphy Flat Order, this in
no way diminishes the Commission's authority to modify this order and to approve the Murphy Flat
Agreements based on new facts or information not available at the time the order was issued. Nor does
Murphy Flat's failure to challenge the Murphy Flat Order in any way preclude it from petitioning the
Commission to exercise its authority here.
Idaho PUC Order No. 32260, Case No. IPC-E- 11-01 et al. (June 8, 2011) (denying the firm energy sales
agreements between Rocky Mountain Power and the Cedar Creek projects); Idaho PUC Order No. 32256,
Case No. IPC-E- 10-59 et al. (June 8, 2011) (denying the finn energy sales agreements between Idaho
Power and the Rainbow projects).
8 Rainbow Ranch at P 24.
Docket Nos. QF 11-46-000, QF 11-47-000, and QF 11-48-000.
10 Murphy Flat Order at 6-7 (noting that Idaho Power sent Murphy Flat initial contracting information in
August, 2010, provided first draft contracts on November 23, 2010, and delivered executable agreements
on December 13, 2010); Murphy Flat Comments, Dockets Nos. IPC-E-10-56, IPC-E-10-57, IPC-E-10-58
(Mar. 17, 2011) (describing in detail the negotiation process).
3
DSIvIDB-3083970
The Commission rejected the Agreements because they failed the
Commission's newly adopted bright line rule, i.e., that Idaho
Power would incur legally enforceable obligations to purchase
power from Murphy Flat only at such time as both parties had
executed the Agreements. 1 '
Murphy Flat did not seek rehearing of or appeal the
Commission's rulings.
Consequently, as in Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch, the Murphy Flat Order likewise is
inconsistent with PURPA and FERC's regulations implementing PURPA.'2 There simply is no
legal basis upon which to distinguish the Murphy Flat Order from those orders addressed in
Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch. In both, FERC found that this Commission's "fully executed
contract" standard violated federal law; and in Rainbow Ranch, it found that a petitioner's failure
to seek judicial review of a state commission's order was irrelevant. 13 Hence, the fact that
Murphy Flat did not seek reconsideration of or appeal the Murphy Flat Order in state court
likewise is immaterial as to whether and, if so, when Idaho Power became legally obligated to
purchase from Murphy Flat. Accordingly, Murphy Flat respectfully submits that FERC's
issuance of the Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch orders constitutes sufficient grounds for
modifying its Murphy Flat Order and approving the Agreements.
"1 1d at 9.
12 Ranch at P 24 (describing the similarities that "cause [FERC] to apply Cedar Creek in this
[the Rainbow Ranch] proceeding" and finding that "the Idaho Commission's June 8 Order is inconsistent
with PURPA, and [FERC's] regulation implementing PURPA, and [its] findings in Cedar Creek for the
reasons given in Cedar Creek"); Cedar Creek at P 30 (finding that "the Idaho PUC decision denying
Cedar Creek a legally enforceable obligation, specifically the requirement in the June 8 Order that a Firm
Energy Sales Agreement/Power Purchase Agreement must be executed by both parties to the agreement
before a legally enforceable obligation arises, is inconsistent with PURPA and our regulations
implementing PURPA, particularly Section 292.304(d)(2)").
13 Rainbow Ranch at PP 27-29 (holding that a state's implementation of PURPA and FERC's rules
implementing PURPA may be challenged in either the state courts under Section 210(g) of PURPA, or at
FERC under Section 210(h) of PURPA, and concluding that, regardless of the procedural posture of a
petition brought in a proceeding under Section 210(g) of PURPA, and, regardless even of a decision not
to proceed under Section 210(g), a petitioner may seek relief under Section 210(h)).
4
DSMDB-3083970
II. In the Alternative, the Commission Should Exercise its Discretion to Establish the
Date on Which a Legally Enforceable PURPA Obligation is Created, Revert to the
Standard it Had Employed Prior to June 8, 2011 to Assess Whether to Grandfather
QF Contracts, and Find that Idaho Power Had Incurred a Legally Enforceable
Obligation at Least as of December 13, 2010.
A. The Commission Should Use its Grandfathering Criteria to Determine When
Idaho Power Incurred a Legally Enforceable Obligation.
No doubt, it is left to the discretion of state commissions to establish the date on which a
legally enforceable PURPA obligation is created; and as this Commission has long recognized, it
is the existence of a legally enforceable obligation that first secures and protects the rights of QFs
under PURPA. Thus, the Commission defined what constituted a legally enforceable obligation
in its 2005 orders - Order Nos. 29839, 29851, and 29872' - which lowered the posted rate
eligibility cap from 10 aMW to 100 kW. But there, instead of requiring wind projects seeking to
be grandfathered under the prior 10 aMW cap to have fully executed contracts, the Commission
looked to its precedents in various complaint and grandfathering cases, and to the factors it had
deemed pertinent in determining whether, as of the grandfathering date, a QF had a "legally
enforceable obligation for published rate entitlement. "5 Specifically, the Commission identified
indicative criteria to determine whether such a legally enforceable obligation existed prior to the
effective date of its decision on the eligibility cap; and if a QF met these criteria, it was entitled
to the published rates even if it exceeded the new eligibility cap.
According to the Commission, a QF was entitled to the posted QF rates if, as of the
applicable deadline, the QF had (i) submitted a signed power purchase agreement to the utility 16
and (ii) demonstrated "other indicia of substantial progress and project maturity," such as "(1) a
14 E.g., Order No. 29839 at 9-10 (2005).
15 Order Nos. 29839 at 9-10 (2005); 29851 at 1-2 (2005); and 29872 at 9 (quotations omitted).
16 As an alternative to submitting an executed power purchase agreement, a QF also could qualify for
grandfathered treatment by submitting "to the utility [] a completed Application for Interconnection Study
and payment of fee," and satisfying the other criteria described herein. Order No. 29872 at 9.
DSMDB-3083970
wind study demonstrating a viable site for the project, (2) a signed contract for wind turbines, (3)
arranged financing for the project, and/or (4) related progress on the facility permitting and
licensing path." 7 The purpose of the indicative criteria was not to create a rigid checklist but to
demonstrate that the QF had expended sufficient time and resources on contract negotiations and
project development so as to achieve a level of project maturity on the basis of which it
reasonably could be expected to be brought on line within a reasonable period following contract
execution. 18 Idaho Power itself stated it well:
In Order No. 29839, the Commission identified several criteria that
the Commission would consider to determine whether a particular
QF wind generation facility was sufficiently mature so as to justifr
"grandfathering" the project to entitlement to the published rates.'
Similarly, in July 2010, the Commission approved a QF contract between Idaho Power
Company and Cargill, which, although fully negotiated prior to the March 16, 2010 effective
date for new published avoided cost rates, had not actually been signed until May 4, 2010, for the
same reason that the Agreements here were not fully executed by December 14, 2010: namely,
the utility's "routine internal approval had not been completed....,,20 The Commission
nonetheless approved the contract based on the utility's representation - as was also true here -
that all outstanding contract issues had been resolved by that date and that, but for the utility's
internal review process, the contract would or could have been signed prior to the March 16,
'7 d. at 8 (quoting Order No. 29839 at 9-10).
18 1d. at 10-11. The Commission did not require that the QF satisfy each of these indicia, but had intended
only to provide example "criteria that could be looked to to assess project maturity." Order No. 29951 at
5.
'9 1n the Matter of the Application of Idaho Power Company for Approval of a Firm Energy Sales
Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Energy Between Idaho Power Company and Salmon
Falls Wind Park LLC at 3, Case No. JPC-E-05-33 (Oct. 21, 2005).
20 Order No. 32024 at 3.
6
DSMDB-3083970
2010 deadline .21 Likewise, in November 2010, the Commission again approved requests for
grandfathering published avoided cost contracts, again recognizing that a QF without a fully
executed contract could demonstrate its entitlement to the previously-effective published avoided
cost rates by satisfying other criteria. 22
In short, wholly without reference to the FERC' s recent orders, if the Commission were
to choose to exercise its discretion and discontinue using a fully executed contract standard, then
it would be entirely appropriate for the Commission to apply its prior precedent to the
circumstances here, and to employ the aforementioned criteria to determine whether a "legally
enforceable obligation" had been incurred. Simply put, it is well within the Commission's
discretion to now order that any QF that met those criteria prior to December 14, 2010 should
similarly have been grandfathered and been eligible to receive the previously published rates. 23
B. A Legally Enforceable Obligation Under Applicable Commission Precedent
Existed Between Murphy Flat and Idaho Power at least as of December 13,
2010, and the Commission Should Exercise its Authority to Modify the
Murphy Flat Order Accordingly.
The Commission's precedents for determining a QF's eligibility to receive published
avoided cost rates, together with the relevant undisputed record of this proceeding, would more
than justify the Commission's deciding to modify the Murphy Flat Order by applying the
previously utilized criteria and concluding that (a) the Parties were under a legally enforceable
21 1d at 4.
22 Order No. 32104 at 11-12.
23 Changing the eligibility cap, and thus the rates that a QF is entitled to be paid for its power, constitutes
a "rate change," and any grandfathering criteria that would appropriately be applied to "rate changes"
should also be applied here, just as the Commission has done in the past. A contrary assertion would
ignore the reality of what the Commission, and the utilities, are doing to affected QFs. Were QFs that are
deemed ineligible for the published avoided cost rates able to obtain those same rates under the
Commission's Integrated Resource Planning avoided cost determinations, there would be no issue here.
By changing the eligibility cap rules, the Commission is by definition changing the rates that QFs are
paid.
7
DSMDB-3083970
obligation prior to the December 14, 2010 deadline, and (b) the Agreements, therefore,
appropriately contained the published rates that had been available to QFs up to 10 aMW prior to
that date.
As Idaho Power acknowledged by the very fact that it had tendered executable
agreements on December 13, 2010, and as Murphy Flat acknowledged by having executed those
agreements on December 13, 2010, and then having offered those signed originals to Idaho
Power - first that same day, and then again on December 14, 2010 - the Parties clearly had
completed negotiation of all terms of the Agreements prior to December 14, 201 •24 It is also
undisputed that when Murphy Flat executed the Agreements on December 13, 2010, the only
remaining task for Idaho Power was to complete its administrative processing. 25 Hence the fact
that Idaho Power did not execute the Agreements until December 15, 2010 is of no moment, and
therefore, the first criterion previously articulated by the Commission in Order Nos. 29839,
29851, and 29872, namely that the QF had submitted a signed power purchase agreement to the
utility as of the announced effective date, was satisfied .26
In addition to having delivered signed Agreements to Idaho Power establishing its intent
to be legally bound by such Agreements, by December 14, 2010 the Projects also had
demonstrated other "indicia of substantial progress and project maturity."27 Specifically, by
December 13, 2010 Murphy Flat had completed, or made substantial progress toward
24 8 Order at 8. Indeed, Murphy Flat delivered final drafts to Idaho Power on December 8, 2010, at
which time Idaho Power began its internal SOX review process. Idaho Power concedes that by the time it
begins its SOX review, the PPA is essentially final. Idaho Power Comments at 5-6, Dockets Nos. IPC-E-
10-56, IPC-E-10-57, IPC-E-10-58 (Mar. 17, 2011) ("Very rarely does this [Sarbanes-Oxley] review result
in any material changes to the draft PPA. Instead, the review process provides confirmation. . .
25 See Order No. 32024 at 3-4 (approving grandfathered avoided cost rates for a QF where only the
utility's administrative processing of its contract prevented that contract from being executed prior to the
change in rate eligibility).
26 E.g., see Order No. 29839 at 9-10.
27 Order No. 29872 at 8.
8
DSMDB-3083970
completing, virtually all of the critical path development milestones for each of the Projects,
including those specifically identified by the Commission as demonstrating sufficient
"substantial progress and project maturity" to establish a legally enforceable obligation.
1.Murphy Flat had collected more than one year of wind data: In the fall of 2009,
having already been selected to receive a $50,000 feasibility study grant from the
United States Department of Agriculture, Murphy Flat erected an anemometer
tower to begin collecting site-specific wind data. Additionally, to further increase
the accuracy of the wind data collection program, it deployed in September, 2010
a SODAR unit provided by Boise State University. By late November, 2010, it
had collected more than a year of wind data and completed a formal wind study
for the Projects with long-term energy correlations.
2.Murphy Flat had obtained its required Conditional Use Permit: On October 18,
2010, Murphy Flat obtained from the Owyhee County Planning and Zoning Board
the Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") required to build and operate the Projects.28
3.Murphy Flat had full site control: By December 2, 2010, Murphy Flat had
executed seven (7) different wind leases and either by lease agreement or outright
ownership exercised full control of the sites for the Projects .29 It purchased the
247 acres that it now owns in fee for about $280,000, and it has spent at least
$30,000 on project-related improvements since then.
4.Murphy Flat had submitted interconnection requests, executed binding
agreements and made five-figure deposits to maintain the required interconnect
in-service date: Murphy Flat submitted to Idaho Power its interconnection
applications in August, 2010.° In November, 2010, it requested a Large
Generator System Impact Study, for which it tendered a $30,000 deposit.
28 Subsequently, having decided to expand the project across more acreage, it sought and received a
second CUP on June 2, 2011.
29 FERC defines "site control" by reference to the definition of that term in the Standard Large Generator
Interconnection Procedures, which is as follows:
documentation reasonably demonstrating: (1) ownership of, a leasehold
interest in, or a right to develop a site for the purpose of constructing the
Generating Facility; (2) an option to purchase or acquire a leasehold site
for such purposes; or (3) an exclusivity or other business relationship
between the Interconnection Customer and the entity having the right to
sell, lease or grant the Interconnection Customer the right to possess or
occupy a site for such purpose.
° On August 5, 2010, Murphy Flat filed interconnection applications for the Murphy Flat Wind and
Murphy Flat Energy projects. Subsequently, on August 16, 2010, it filed an interconnection application
for the Murphy Flat Mesa project.
9
DSMDB-3083970
5.Murphy Flat easily could have arranged a term sheet with a major turbine
provider: By December 9, 2010, having already submitted final draft power
purchase agreements to Idaho Power, Murphy Flat had engaged several turbine
manufacturers, including Clipper and Nordex, in formal discussions, with the goal
of making turbine deposits by the end of 2010. (Unlike 2005, when wind turbines
were in short supply and early reservations were the norm, in late 2010 the
practice was not to consummate turbine sale agreements and incur substantial
reservation fees until the developer had an approved power purchase agreement in
hand.)
6.Murphy Flat had qualifying facility status: On November 12, 2010, the Murphy
Flat Projects self-certified with FERC as qualifying facilities. 31
Lastly, as of December 14, 2010, Murphy Flat had in total invested about half a million
dollars to support its obligations to deliver the Projects - fully permitted, constructed and
operating - by the commercial operation dates specified in the Agreements. Certainly, had the
Agreements not been rejected, to meet a December 31, 2012 commercial operation date, that
investment would have increased much more. Collectively, then, by December 13, 2010, the
Projects reflected considerable and mature development efforts, significant financial
investments, and irrevocable commitments.
There is no question, then, that as of December 13, 2010 the Projects were more than
sufficiently mature so as to require Idaho Power to negotiate and eventually execute a contract
pursuant to PURPA. Indeed that is just what Idaho Power thought when it tendered to Murphy
Flat an executable contract on December 13, 2010.32 It is also clear that, prior to its having
adopted its bright line rule, the Commission's only relevant precedent defining a legally
enforceable obligation required that such obligation be recognized here at least as of
December 13, 2010, and that Idaho Power proceed formally to execute the Agreements. Murphy
31 Docket Nos. QF 11-46-000, QF 11-47-000, and QF 11-48-000.
32 See Cedar Creek at P 32 (noting that the utility's delivery to the QF of a final, fully negotiated and
mutually agreed upon unexecuted version of the contract and the QF' s execution of that contract before
the rate change provided persuasive evidence that QF committed itself to sell, and therefore the utility
committed itself to buy, power).
10
DSMDB-3083970
Flat, therefore, respectfully requests that the Commission exercise its discretion and modify the
Murphy Flat Order so as to find (a) that a legally enforceable obligation existed as of
December 13, 2010; (b) that Murphy Flat is entitled to receive the then published avoided cost
rates for projects up to 10 aMW; and (c) that the Agreements therefore should be accepted and
approved by the Commission without further hearings or other proceedings.
III. Statement of Legal Authority.
Murphy Flat acknowledges that it did not seek reconsideration of the Murphy Flat Order
and that, accordingly, that order became final. Nevertheless, the Commission may modify an
order that has not been challenged on reconsideration pursuant to authority granted by Code
§ 61-624, which provides:
Rescission or change of orders.—The commission may at any time,
upon notice to the public utility affected, and after opportunity to
be heard as provided in the case of complaints, rescind, alter or
amend order or decision made by it. Any order rescinding, altering
or amended a prior order or decisions shall, when served upon the
public utility affected have the same effect as is herein provided
for original orders or decisions.
This Commission has itself recognized its authority to modify an order that is otherwise final.33
Because the holdings in Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch apply equally here, the Commission
should exercise its authority under Idaho Code § 61-624 and modify the Murphy Flat Order so
as to approve the Agreements.
See Idaho Public Utilities Commission, In Re Idaho Power Company, Order No. 32212, Case No.
GNR-E- 10-04 at 14 (Mar. 28, 2011) (citing with approval Assoc. Pac. Movers, Housemovers, Inc. v
Rowley, 551 P.2d 618, 620 (1976), for the proposition that "an application requesting that the
Commission rescind, alter or amend an order pursuant to Idaho Code § 61-624 does not constitute a
collateral attack of a Commission order").
11
DSMDB-3083970
IV. Request for Expedited Action.
The issue raised by this Petition is strictly one of law, there being no relevant factual
disputes and no need for further factual support. Murphy Flat, therefore, requests that the
Commission grant the Petition and approve the Agreements without an evidentiary hearing or
further proceedings, as it has on other occasions when QFs sought and received grandfathered
published avoided cost rates in recognition of their PURPA rights. 34
Murphy Flat also requests that the Commission issue its order on this Petition on an
expedited basis but not later than August 31, 2012. Assuming as we must that Congress will
extend the federal financial incentives another year, Murphy Flat must have the Projects on line
by December 31, 2013. Otherwise, it will not receive those incentives, which are critical to
financing the project. To meet that deadline, the Projects must be able to accept back-feed power
by mid-Fall 2013 at the latest. And Murphy Flat has been informed by Idaho Power that for this
to occur, Idaho Power must begin almost immediately to order various critical path equipment
and materials required for the Projects' interconnection. Hence, it certainly can be said that time
is now of the essence and that, absent the Commission's expeditious approval of the Agreements,
the continued viability of the Projects will be in very considerable jeopardy.
The process leading up to the Commission's issuance of the Murphy Flat Order already
was lengthy, and the matters presented in this Petition are straight-forward; they do not require a
similar extended process. Again though, and most importantly, for Murphy Flat to meet its
operational dates, the Commission must move promptly to modify its Murphy Flat Order.
Accordingly, Murphy Flat respectfully submits that expedited Commission action by August 31,
2012 would be appropriate under the instant circumstances.
34 E.g., Order No. 29951; Order No. 30246; Order No. 30268.
12
DSMDB-3083970
Lastly, should the Commission decide not to modify the Murphy Flat Order, we
respectfully request that it issue an order to this effect at the earliest possible time, and in no
event later than August 31, 2012. Otherwise, while Murphy Flat technically still could continue
to pursue its legal rights to further process and appeal, as a practical matter, the Projects likely no
longer could be developed even if ultimately shown to have been in the right.
V. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief.
Based on the reasons and authority cited herein, Murphy Flat respectfully requests that, in
compliance with PURPA and consistent with the Commission's precedent, or, alternatively, as a
matter of its discretion and wholly without reference to Cedar Creek and Rainbow Ranch, that
the Commission modify its Murphy Flat Order and approve the Agreements by no later than
August 31, 2012 without further briefing, hearing or other proceedings.
DATED this day of August, 2012. By:
Ronald L. Williams ISB No. 3034
Williams Bradbury, Attorneys at Law
1015 W. Hays Street
Boise, ID 83702
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Larry F. Eisenstat
Daniel A. Broderick
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5403
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsellor Murphy Flat Mesa, LLC
Counsellor Murphy Flat Energy, LLC
Counsellor Murphy Flat Wind, LLC
13
DSMDB-3083970
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 1 6 day of August, 2012, I caused to be served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following individuals in the manner indicated
below:
Donovan E. Walker Hand Delivery Lisa D. Nordstrom
Idaho Power Company L US Mail (postage prepaid)
P.O. Box 70 (83707) Facsimile Transmission
1221 West Idaho Street fl Federal Express
Electronic Transmission Boise, ID 83702
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Kristine Sasser Hand Delivery
Idaho Public Utilities Commission E US Mail (postage prepaid)
472 W. Washington (zip: 83702) F1 Facsimile Transmission
P0 Box 83720 fl Federal Express
Boise, ID 83720-0074 Z Electronic Transmission
E-Mail: kristine.sasserpuc.idaho.gov
IL W A~"-
Ronald L. Williams
14
DSMDB-3083970