19901015order_no_23380.pdf

,
"..~ l1. ti $e.--Y.~Øá-
OCT 15 1990
BEFRE THE IDAHO PUBUC UT COMMSSION
IN TH MATtE OF TH APCATION )
OF IDAHO POWE COMPAN FOR AUT- )ORl TO RATEAS TH IN )REQUI FOR TH REBun OF TH )SWAN FAL HYROELC PROJCT )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
IN TH MA'IlER OF TH APCATION
OF IDAHO POWE COMPAN FOR ACEBlIFICATE OF PULIC CONVCEAN NECE FOR TH RATEASGOF TH MI HYROELCPROJECT OR IN TH ALTETIA DETTION OF üEMP
STATUS FOR TH MI HYRO-ELCTC PROJ
CAS NO. IPE-902
CAS NO. IPE-90
ORDER NO. 2380
This order diects the paries to address legal issues common to Idaho
Power's two applications regarding construction of hydroelectric generation
facilities at Swan Falls and Mier through briefs and oral argument at hearig
and further diects that an evidentiary hearg be held in the Swan Falls Case,
IPC-E-90-2.
BACKGROUN
On August 22, 1990, a prehearg conference was held on these two
cases. At that conference, the paries requested an opportunty to submit wrtten
statements of position regardig legal or jursdictional issues. They have done
so, and we have reviewed them. We now desire fuher briefig on three issues
that we set forth below and alert the parties to be prepared for oral arguent on
those issues at the hearg scheduled for November 27-28, 1990 in the Miner
case, IPC-E-90-8.
ORDER NO. 23380 -1-
,..
TI IS FOR DR' EFJG
The Swan Falls and Miler projects lie before us with different legal
backgrounds as well as the dierent factual backgrounds always associated with
different plants. Neverheless, these projects are closely tied in time and may
present overlapping legal or jurisdictional issues. For that reason, we ask the
parties to brief the following legal issues in light of the facts of each project and
be prepared to address them in oral arguent at hearing:
1. What is the legal authority for the Commssion to approve
ratebasing of the Swan Fal rebuid before the rebuild is in servce? What is the
legal authority for the Commssion to approve ratebasing for the Miler project
before the project is in service?
2. What is the legal authority or propriety as a matter of policy of using
avoided costs as a cap for ratebasin the Swan Falls rebuild? What is the legal
authority or propriety as a matter of policy of using avoided costs as a cap for
ratebasing the Miler projec?
3. Does the Commssion have authority to declare in the abstract that
a certified plant or a plant by statute exempt from certifcation may be ratebased
without yet knowing the cost of ratebasin the plant in retail rates? Does the
Commssion have authority to declar in the abstract that a certifed plant or a
plant by statute exempt from certifcation may be excluded from rate basing for a
fied period in the futu without yet knowig the cost of ratebasing in retail
rates? How are the rights of utility investors affectd in the implied interval
created by such a decision?
ORDER NO. 23380 -3-
~..
/ / II /
II II /
/ / II /
II II /
/ II / /
/ II / /
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commssion at Boise,
Idaho, this /,?.u day of October 1990.
~~ç,'~PERRSHER, COMm=R
iv~o~
ATTST:
~~RS~S~ftARY
MG:nh/O-1167
ORDER NO. 23380 -5-