20200331Comments.pdf

COMMENTS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 1
DONOVAN E. WALKER (ISB No. 5921)
Idaho Power Company
1221 West Idaho Street (83702)
P.O. Box 70
Boise, Idaho 83707
Telephone: [phone]
cell: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorney for Idaho Power Company

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CAPACITY
DEFICIENCY TO BE UTILIZED FOR
AVOIDED COST CALCULATIONS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. IPC-E-19-20

COMMENTS OF IDAHO
POWER COMPANY

Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power” or “Company”), in accordance with Notice
of Modified Procedure Order No. 34598, hereby respectfully submits the following
Comments to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”). Idaho Power
appreciates the opportunity to reduce to writing the brief comments it intended to make
at the Commission’s March 10, 2020, Decision Meeting at which Staff was requesting
dismissal of the Company’s Application. The Company acknowledges that the
Commission has issued clear and direct orders on this topic and will not belabor the issue
here. However, there are just a couple of points the Company would like to make before
the Commission decides whether to dismiss the Application.
RECEIVED
2020 March 31,PM1:03
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
COMMENTS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 2
A. Changing All-Utility Requirements in a Single-Utility Docket -- While Idaho
Power is not aware of any case that directly says the Commission does not change
requirements applicable to all utilities in a single-utility docket, I think everyone would
agree that the Commission historically, or traditionally, has not made this its practice. In
this particular case, the Commission created the requirement for each utility to file a
separate case to determine the capacity deficiency for avoided cost purposes at the time
it files its Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”). This requirement was ordered in a GNR case,
GNR-E-11-03, which was a multi-utility, multi-party, contested hearing case. However,
the Commission subsequently changed this requirement, even to the extent that it
announced an amendment to the final order from GNR-E-11-03, but did so in a single-
utility case, a PacifiCorp case, PAC-E-17-09.
This PacifiCorp case was its own avoided cost capacity deficiency filing associated
with its 2017 IRP filing. Idaho Power had its own corresponding case for avoided cost
capacity deficiency associated with its 2017 IRP, IPC-E-17-12, going on at approximately
the same time, however the timing of the filing was not changed in Idaho Power’s case.
(Idaho Power’s case, IPC-E-17-12: Application filed 7-26-17, Staff Comments filed 9-6-
17, final order issued 10-5-17, and reconsideration order issued 11-09-17. PacifiCorp’s
case, PAC-E-17-09: Application filed 8-18-17, Staff Comments 9-28-17, and final order
issued 10-24-17.) Idaho Power had no reasonable expectation that the Commission
would make changes applicable to Idaho Power in PacifiCorp’s case, especially changes
that were not brought up or directed in the nearly simultaneous Idaho Power case
addressing the same topic.
A change to the Commission’s historical and traditional practice of making all-utility
COMMENTS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 3
determinations in a GNR case and proceeding, and not in a single-utility docket, would
require the utilities to not only monitor every case filed by every other utility, but also to
directly intervene as a party in many instances. Idaho Power has not anticipated this level
of involvement in other utility cases, nor other utilities’ involvement in Idaho Power’s
cases. If this is the intent of the Commission then Idaho Power, and the other utilities as
well, will need to change their practice and participation in Commission proceedings.
B. Basis of the Timing Change -- In changing the capacity deficiency filing from
the time the utility files its IRP to the time when the IRP is acknowledged, the Commission
has made a substantial shift of several months, even up to a year, in the applicability of a
more current capacity deficiency determination for avoided cost rates. Whenever there
is a delay from the time that we know an input to avoided costs will be different to the time
when that change is put in place, there is the potential for QF projects to lock-in higher
rates for the duration of their PURPA contracts, to the direct detriment of customers. The
record shows that the decision to change the general filing requirement for all utilities was
made in PacifiCorp’s case and based upon convenience to Staff with no mention or
evaluation of the possible impact to customers from the delay in effectiveness of any
potential change. The only mention in the record is in a brief paragraph in Staff’s
Comments as follows:
While Order No. 32697 directs all three electric utilities to file
their first capacity deficiency case after submitting their IRP
report to the Commission, Staff respectfully suggests that
cases seeking first capacity deficiency date authorizations for
all three utilities be filed after Commission IRP
acknowledgement.

Staff has found that the scope of review to determine the
reasonableness of the proposed deficiency date must
sometimes consider a large subset of factors that are typically
COMMENTS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 4
reviewed for IRP acknowledgement. However, Staff’s review
and Commission acknowledgment of the IRP can occur
several months after the first capacity deficiency date cases
are settled. Staff believes it would be more efficient and
appropriate to delay capacity deficiency filings until after
Commission IRP acknowledgment. This would eliminate
duplication of effort between the two types of cases and
ensure that all factors that could affect the first capacity
deficiency date are covered through the comprehensive
nature of the IRP acknowledgement review.

Staff Comments, p. 4-5, Case No. PAC-E-17-09. Similarly, the record shows that
the Commission’s only discussion regarding the substantive timing change applicable to
all utilities, is a similar single paragraph referencing impact on the utilities planning
process and improved efficiency for Staff’s review, but no mention of any consideration
about how the timing could, or could not, affect customer rates:
As to the timing of the Company's and other electric utilities'
capacity deficiency filings, we find it reasonable for the utilities
to postpone such filings until after we have completed our
consideration of the utilities' IRP reports and acknowledged
them. Rocky Mountain did not oppose this change in timing,
and it does not appear to have a negative impact on the
utilities or their planning processes and will ensure improved
efficiency and greater comprehensiveness of Staff's review.
We therefore amend Order No. 32697 to direct the utilities to
file their first capacity deficiency cases after the Commission
has acknowledged their IRP reports.

Order No. 33914, p. 4, Case No. PAC-E-17-09. A substantive change that potentially
delays the implementation of a new capacity deficiency period for avoided cost rates by
months has the potential to impact customers should QF contracts and/or obligations be
locked-in with an overpayment of capacity. There is nothing in the record to show that
this was a consideration when changing a requirement the Commission created out of a
contested hearing docket to separate the avoided cost capacity deficiency determination
COMMENTS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 5
from that in the IRP.
Idaho Power acknowledges that there may be times, such as with the Company’s
2019 IRP that the process is delayed, and it may make sense to also delay the
determination of capacity deficiency for avoided costs. However, if it is the expectation
that the Company must monitor and intervene in all other utility proceedings, even parallel
proceedings happening simultaneously such as was the case here, then the Company
needs to know that this will be the new practice. Additionally, determinations made in
multi-utility and multi-party proceeding that go to hearing, should not be changed or
abandoned for the convenience of one party without some discussion on the record that
such convenience outweighs the potential customer harm that could result from the
change.
Respectfully submitted this 31st day of March 2020.

DONOVAN E. WALKER
Attorney for Idaho Power Company

COMMENTS OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY - 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of March 2020, I served a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing Comments of Idaho Power Company upon the following
named parties by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:

Edward Jewell
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission

[e-mail]

Hand Delivered
_ U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
FAX
X Email

/s/ Christy Davenport
Christy Davenport, Legal Assistant