20140114Third Motion to Supplement.pdf

Peter J. Richardson (ISB # 3195)
Gregory M. Adams (ISB # 7454)
Richardson Adams, PLLC
515 N. 27th Street
Boise,Idaho 83702
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
peter@richardsonadams. com
gre s@richardsonadams. com
Attomeys for Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc.
) XOOTTxAI ELECTRIC
) coopnnarlvE, INC.,s rHrRn
)ruortoN To suPPLEMENT THE
I nrconn)
)
)
)
)
)
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
CASE NO.IPC.E-11.23
IN THE MATTER OF IDAHO POWER
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
DECLARATORY ORDER REGARDING
PURPA JURISDICTION.
Kootenai Electric Cooperative, [nc. ("Kootenai") hereby respectfully moves the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("IPUC" or "Commission") to allow Kootenai to
supplement the record with the Oregon Public Utility Commission's ("OPUC") recent
decision regarding Kootenai's qualiffing facility ("QF"). Kootenai makes this filing
pursuant to the Commission's Rule of Procedure 66 and out of its ongoing obligation to
apprise the Commission of recent developments in related matters.
In the attached order, the OPUC granted Kootenai's complaint against Idaho
Power Company ("Idaho Power") at the OPUC. The OPUC ordered ldaho Power to
enter into a standard power purchase agreement to purchase the electrical output of
THIRD MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E-l l-23
PAGE - 1
Kootenai's QF at Oregon's Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA")
rates, in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ("FERC") June
14,2013 and December 19, 2013 orders.
The attached OPUC order therefore moots the proceedings in this IPUC docket
because the OPUC order conclusively resolves the question of whether the rules of the
OPUC or the IPUC control Kootenai's QF sale to Idaho Power in eastem Oregon.
Furthermore, the FERC orders and the OPUC's order implementing PURPA preempt the
IPUC from granting Idaho Power's request that the IPUC interfere with Kootenai's
interstate QF transaction. See, e.g., Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Moore,487 U.S.
354,369-77 (1988).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein and in Kootenai's prior filings,
Kootenai respectfully requests that the IPUC accept the attached OPUC order into the
record in this proceeding, and expeditiously dismiss ldaho Power's petition.
Respectfully submiued this l4e day of Januuy 2014.
RICHARDSON ADAMS, PLLC
Of Auorneys for Kootenai Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
THIRD MOTTON TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E-11-23
PAGE - 2
M. Adams (ISB No. 7454)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14ft day of January,2}l4,a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing THIRD MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD BY KOOTENAI ELECTzuC COOPERATIVE, INC. was served by
ELECTRONIC MAIL and HAND DELIVERY, to:
Donovan E. Walker
Jason Williams
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Steet
Boise, Idatro 83707 -007 0
dwalker@ idahopower. com
j williams@ idahopower. com
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472West Washington
Boise,Idaho 83702
Jean j [e-mail]. gov
THIRD MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
IPC-E-11-23
PAGE - 3
ATTACHMENT 1
OPUC ORDER NO. 14-013
ORDER NO.
ENTERBD
BEFORE THE PT]BLIC UTILMY COMNIISSION
OF ORE,GON
uM ts72
14 0 13
JAN 0 02014
In the Matter of
KOOTENAI ELECTRIC COOPERATME,
INC.,ORDER
Complainant,
vs.
IDAHO POWER COMPANY,
Defendant.
DISPOSITION: ORDER 13-062 WTIIIDRAWN; COMPLAINT GRANTED
In Order No. 13-062, we concluded that Kootenai Electric Cooperative, fnc., was not
eligible to sell the ouput of its qualiffing facility (QF) to Idaho Power Company at rates
established in Oregon under the Public Utitity Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). We
found that the output of the QF, uihich is located in Idaho, would be transfened to Idaho
Power at the Lolo Substation in ldaho, and therefore was subject to PURPA rates adopted
by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
We subsequenfly granted Kootenai's application for reconsideration of that decision. [n
Order No. 13-238, we noted that Kootenai had requested that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) enforce Kootenai's right to an Oregon PURPA contract
and held that we would revisit our decision once the pending proceedings before FERC
were resolved.
Since that time, FERC has issued two orders addressing Kootenai's complaint. First, in
its June 14,20L3 Declaratory Order,l FERC found that the transaction proposed by
Kootenai resulted in a delivery of power to Idaho Power in the State of Oregon" and that
r:nder the proposed transaction, Idaho Power was required to purchase Kootenai's output
at Oregon PURPA rates. Second, in response to Idaho Power's request for
reconsideration, FERC issued an December 18,2013 Order Denying Request for
I See Notice of lntent Not to Act and Deciaratory Order, FERC Docket Nos. ELt3-59-000, QFl t-178-002,
143 FERC n 61,232 (Jun 14, 2013).
ORDERNO.to4 tl 15
Reconsideration, in which it affirmed its finding that the point of delivery of Kootenai's
output is in fhe State of Oregon.2
After reviewing FERC's Declaratory Order and Order Denying Request for
Reconsideration, we conclude that our Order No. 13-062 contravenes FERC's finding
regarding the point of delivery of Kootenai's proposed transaction. Accordingly, we
withdraw Order 13-062 and grant Kootenai's complaint.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1.The complaint of Kootenai Electric Cooperative,lnc., against Idaho Power
Company dated January 2,2012 is granted-
Idaho Power Company is ordered to enter into a standard power purchase
agreement to purchase the electrical output of Kootenai Electic Cooperative,
lnc.'s qualiSing facility at Oregon PURPA rates, in compliance with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission 's June 14,2013 and December 19,2013 orders.
Made, entered, and effective JAN 0 920t4
6tV"-V-,nuu,u- *
Susan IC Ackerman
Commissioner
A parB rehearing or reconsideration of this order urder ORS 756.561.A
request for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed with the Conrmission within 60 days
of the date of service of this order. The request must comply with the requirements in
OAR 860-001-0720. A copy of the request must also be served on each party to the
proceedings as provided in OAR 860-001-0180(2). A party may appeal this order by filing
a petition for review with the Court of Appeals in complianc.e with ORS 183.480 through
183.484.
2 See Order Denying Request for Reconsideration, FERC Docket Nos. EL13-59-001, QFl1-l7E-003, I45
FERC 1[61,229 @ec 19,2013).