20090408final_order_no_30766.pdf

Office ofthe Secretary
Service Date
April 8, 2009
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER'S REQUEST TO POSTPONE THE
FILING OF ITS 2009 INTEGRATED
RESOURCE PLAN (lRP)ORDER NO. 30766
CASE NO. P AC-09-
On March 27 2009, Rocky Mountain Power filed a "Motion" to postpone the filing
of its 2009 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). Rocky Mountain s IRP was scheduled to be filed on
March 30, 2009, but the Company now requests permission to file its 2009 IRP no later than
May 29 2009. Future IRPs will be filed on the last business day of March in odd number years.
Based upon the reasons set out below, we find there is good cause to grant the requested relief.
BACKGROUND
The biennial IRP is a planning document that generally sets forth how electric and
gas utilities intend to meet the energy requirements of their customers over the next 10 years.
Order No. 22299, the Commission directed each electric utility to file a biennial IRP that
analyzes its customer base, load growth, supply-side resources, and demand-side management
(DSM) resources. Order No. 27835 directed Rocky Mountain to file its IRP in December 2000
and every two years thereafter.
In February 2007, Rocky Mountain asked permission to file its December 2006 IRP
no later than May 30, 2007. The Company also requested that the subsequent IRP be allowed to
be filed no later than the last business day of March 2009. The Commission issued Order No.
30262 allowing the late filing and setting Rocky Mountain s new IRP filing date in March 2009
and every two years thereafter.
THE MOTION
In its Motion for Extension, Rocky Mountain states that the delay in completing and
filing its 2009 IRP is attributable to three primary reasons. First and foremost, on February 11
2009, the Company terminated its agreement to build the Lakeside 2 combined-cycle combustion
turbine. Petition at 2. When the Company started planning its 2009 IRP, this plant was included
in the resource stack with a planned in-service date of 2012. The Company indicated that it
terminated the Lakeside 2 project so that it could "seek more cost-effective resource alternatives
ORDER NO. 30766
(given) the recessionary environment, continued declines in forward electricity and gas prices
the favorable outlook for future plant construction costs, and additional transmission import
capability into Utah. . . .Id. Given the termination of the Lakeside 2 project, the Company
needs additional time to conduct further analysis and recreate its "preferred portfolio" for the
2009 IRP.
Second, in February 2009, Rocky Mountain developed a revised load forecast that
reflects the impact from the economic recession on the Company s projected load growth. The
Company needs additional time to perform its analysis of the changes in its resources and load
growth forecast in the 2009 IRP. Third, the Company is also conducting additional "resource
acquisition risk analysis and wind integration cost analysis" that will not be completed by the
existing filing deadline of March 31 , 2009. Id. at 3. Allowing the Company to complete its
analytical work given the basic changes to its resource and load growth assumptions is in the
public interest. The Company asserts that future IRPs (e., the 2011 IRP) will be filed by the
last business day of March in odd number years. Id. at 4.
Consequently, Rocky Mountain requests that the Commission approve an extension
of time to file the 2009 IRP to no later than May 29, 2009. Rocky Mountain asserts that its
future IRPs will be filed no later than the last business day of March.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Given the administrative nature of Rocky Mountain s request, the Staff suggested
that the Commission treat the Company s "Motion" as a petition requesting modification of an
existing Order. Rule 53 , IDAP A 31.01.01.053. Rule 53 notes that pleadings that request a
modification of an existing Order (I.e., Order No. 30262) are defined as "Petitions.Id.
Staff recommended that the Commission grant Rocky Mountain an extension of its
2009 IRP filing date to May 29, 2009. Staff believes there is good cause to grant the requested
relief without further notice or public comment.
COMMISSION FINDINGS
We shall treat the Company s Motion for Extension of Time as a petition requesting
relief from a prior Commission Order. IDAP A 31.01.01.053. Based upon our review of Rocky
Mountain s Petition and Staffs recommendation, we grant Rocky Mountain s request and extend
the filing deadline for the 2009 IRP. Idaho Code ~ 61-624. Given the procedural nature of the
ORDER NO. 30766
request, we find there is good cause to grant the requested relief without further notice or public
comment.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Rocky Mountain Power s Petition for Extension of
Time is granted. The Company shall file its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) no later than May
2009. We remind the Company that it shall designate its filing as the 2009 IRP.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rocky Mountain Power shall file future IRPs no
later than the last business day of March on a biennial basis beginning in 2011.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. P AC-09-
02 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~ 61-626.
ORDER NO. 30766
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this '7H.
day of April 2009.
MARSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
~~~
ATTEST:
D. Je ell
ission Secretary
bls/O:PAC-09-02 dh
ORDER NO. 30766