20210202Reconsideration_Order_No_34909.pdf

1

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
February 2, 2021
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY FOR
APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF AN
ENERGY SALES AGREEMENT WITH
COLEMAN HYDROELECTRIC, LLC FOR
THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY FROM THE COLEMAN HYDRO
PROJECT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. IPC-E-20-27

ORDER NO. 34909

On June 25, 2020, Idaho Power Company (“Idaho Power” or “Company”) applied for
approval or rejection of its proposed Energy Sales Agreement (“ESA”) with Coleman
Hydroelectric, LLC (“Seller”) for energy generated by the Coleman Hydro Project (the “Facility”).
Application at 1. The Facility, near Leadore, Idaho, is a qualifying facility (“QF”) under the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”) and has an 800 kW nameplate capacity. Id.
On December 17, 2020, the Commission issued Order No. 34780 approving the ESA
on the condition that the Company and Seller update the ESA’s published avoided cost rates
consistent with Order No. 34683, instead of using rates from Order No. 34350 that expired on June
1, 2020.
On January 4, 2021, Seller filed a (1) Petition for Reconsideration, and (2) Petition to
Intervene or Determine Original Party Status. No one responded to the Seller’s petitions. With
this Order, The Commission grants the Seller’s Petition for Reconsideration and specifies how the
matter will be reconsidered as discussed below. The Commission also by this Order denies in part,
and grants in part, the Seller’s Petition to Intervene or Determine Original Party Status.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under Idaho Code §§ 61-502 and 61-
503. The Commission is empowered to investigate rates, charges, rules, regulations, practices,
and contracts of public utilities and to determine whether they are just, reasonable, preferential,
discriminatory, or in violation of any provision of law, and to fix the same by order. Idaho Code
§§ 61-502 and 61-503. In addition, the Commission has authority under the Public Utilities
Regulatory Policies Act (“PURPA”) and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations to
set avoided costs, to order electric utilities to enter fixed-term obligations for the purchase of
2

energy from QFs, and to implement rules. The Commission may enter any final order consistent
with its authority under Title 61 and PURPA.
1. Petition for Reconsideration
The Commission has the authority to grant or deny reconsideration under Idaho Code
§ 61-626(2). Reconsideration allows any interested person to bring to the Commission’s attention
any question previously determined, and thereby affords the Commission an opportunity to rectify
any mistake or omission. See Washington Water Power Co., v. Kootenai Environmental Alliance,
99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). The Commission’s Rules of Procedure require a
petition for reconsideration to “set forth specifically the ground or grounds why the petitioner
contends that the order or any issue decided in the order is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous or
not in conformity with the law.” See IDAPA 31.01.01.331.01. Rule 331.01 further requires the
petitioner provide a “statement of the nature and quantity of evidence or argument the petitioner
will offer if reconsideration is granted.” Id. A petition must state whether reconsideration should
be conducted by “evidentiary hearing, written briefs, comments, or interrogatories.” See Rule
331.03.
Coleman asserts the Commission can grant its Petition for Reconsideration without
further proceedings. But Coleman states it is prepared to offer evidence at hearing or additional
argument should the Commission allow it. Petition for Reconsideration at 1-2. Coleman argues
the Commission should reconsider Order No. 34870 on four grounds it sets forth in its Petition for
Reconsideration.
The Petition for Reconsideration satisfies the requirements of Rule 31.01 by describing
why Seller believes Order No. 34780 is unreasonable, unlawful, erroneous, or not in conformity
with the law and stating the nature and quantity of evidence or argument if reconsideration is
granted. See Rule 31.01. The Petition for Reconsideration also states how Seller believes Order
No. 34780 may be reconsidered. See Rule 331.03.
The Commission finds that additional consideration of the issues raised by the Seller’s
Petition for Reconsideration is appropriate. We find that the existing record is sufficient to
consider the arguments. Accordingly, the Commission will grant the Petition for Reconsideration
based on the current record.

3

2. Petition to Intervene or Determine Original Party Status
As Seller notes, the Commission has treated the Seller as a party to this proceeding
from its inception. See generally Order Nos. 34756 and 34870. If a utility applies for consideration
of an ESA, the Commission routinely treats the ESA’s counter-party as a party to the case because,
by signing the ESA, that party has at least impliedly asked the Commission to approve the ESA.
See e.g., ESA p. 31, § 21.1 (noting the ESA will not take effect until approved by the Commission).
See also Rules 31 and 32 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, IDAPA 31.01.01.031 and .032
(listing “parties” to proceedings, including “applicants,” which are persons “who see any right,
license, award or authority” from the Commission). Here, as a party to the ESA, the Seller has a
direct interest in the ESA, Idaho Power’s Application, and the Commission’s ruling. It is,
therefore, fair, just, and reasonable to deem the Seller to be an original party to this proceeding,
with all rights of a party attaching.
Because we deem the Seller to already be a party to this proceeding, the Seller’s
alternative request for intervenor status is unnecessary and, therefore, denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Seller’s Petition for Reconsideration is granted.
The Commission will utilize the existing record to consider the arguments raised in Seller’s
Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Intervene is denied as unnecessary
because the Seller is a party to the ESA with Idaho Power and has been treated as a party from the
inception of this case.
///
4

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 2nd day
of February 2021.

PAUL KJELLANDER, PRESIDENT

KRISTINE RAPER, COMMISSIONER

ERIC ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER

ATTEST:

Jan Noriyuki
Commission Secretary

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\IPC-E-20-27\orders\IPCE2027_Petition_jh.docx